UK Study: Illegal Music Downloaders Also Spend The Most On Music

The Independent:

People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study.

Read the whole story: The Independent

Comments

[tomorrowman58]

To Reed Young
One thing the report doesnt clarify is that segment of the population that downloads music illegaly is the same part of the population that is most muscially active regarding buying music. In other words they would buy a lot of music even if illegal downloads didnt exist, and NOT because they do.
In Sweden laws have been enacted to curtail illegal downloads and legal sales have gone up 20%.
Regarding music in other continents. I suggest you travel around a bit more and not be so prejudiced.
Many "western"artists count on those markets more than ever before. Its called Global economy.

If youre interested check this out for starters.:


http://progagainstpirates.blogspot.com/

http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Story.aspx?id=830

http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

[brady61995]

proof that file sharing is free ads not pirating. greedy record companies never did get that when you hear something you like you will go and buy vs having a choppy downloaded version

[tomorrowman58]

I dont know why my comments were deleted, but Ill try again.
As a musician and composer I can only say that illegal downloads and pirating are killing the music activity. Most musicians are poor or struggling, they need the revenues from cd's and other outlets to survive and continue creating. Second, not all music is made to be played live, there are many kinds of music that is made to be actually LISTENED TO and enjoyed at home etc. It is expensive for an independant artist to record and produce a decent recording, It is also the intellectual property of that musician and must be protected , just like any other persons work. Sure, big names like Madonna , shakira could take an economical hit ( and even that is wrong), but for the immense majority of musicians, Illegal downloading is poison.

[ErickK]

Musicians have been dying poor and without ownership of their music for decades; this is nothing new and certainly not a result of illegal downloading.

The article suggests that illegal downloaders spend MORE, not less, on music distributed through legitimate means; again, if there's a problem, it lies between the artist and record company.

[tomorrowman58]

I disagree, most of the people who download illegally have entire collections of music,all downloaded without paying the artist a cent. And would continue to do so.
why shouldnt they if its free? The person who suffers is not the middleman but the artist.
As for the starving artist...I also disagree.

[brady61995]

music is dead for the most part. bands today are ripples of other bands from the past. there is not many new groups that i am too excited about.

[ReedYoung]

"As a musician and composer I can only say ..."

You could tell us your stage name, how to buy your work and some evidence that your work is being downloaded but not purchased. Unless you're a liar.

[Eris23]

As a musician and composer with published music of my own, I can say without a doubt that I absolutely don't care if people pirate my music. It's not killing the music industry. It's merely hurting a distribution technique that has been incedibly greedy and unfair for way too long. In any other setting, the type of contracts that are employed by the entertainment industry would be considered unconscionable. At best, as someone who has never been a mega-selling artist, I get an advance payment on mechanical royalties up to a point, which is largely chump change. I made my money through performing, not selling records. Piracy, just as much as legal purchases, got people out to see me. Depending on the size and price of the show, I'd make about as much as I would through an entire record/CD run at one show.

[rughead23]

A quick way to catch up on all those great songs I was exposed to on the radio, mtv, vh1 growing up when I heard youtube had everything. Though I don't know how the copyrights are working with youtube. I did purchase many cassettes, Cd's and attended concerts.

[Charity]

i had stopped buying vinyl and wasn't even bothering with purchasing a CD player when napster came on the scene. i had a huge vinyl collection but had lost interest in music.

but with napster, i felt revived. not only was i able to download cuts from albums i already owned to make easy compilations on my computer, but also, i was able to track down old 78s that my mother had bought in the 40s and which i still owned but didn't have any way to play them.

but the best thing of all was i began to develop an interest in world music - strictly via napster.

soon, i was out PURCHASING the music i'd sampled on napster, which in turn would lead me to other artists. with my new CD player and my new growing PURCHASED CD collection, i was loving music again.

but when napster was shut down and the recording industry began to sue participants, i stopped downloading music AND i stopped buying CDs.

it is only on the rare occasion that i buy a CD now. i don't use ITUNES or the "new napster." i have no interest.

i figure the recording industry lost my buying power for about 9 or so years now.

[lefty2026]

I feel exactly the same. In college, I downloaded music like crazy. I was discovering new and great stuff constantly. I was able to quickly get all the music off my friend's computers and discovered tons of great music. When I found artists I loved, I bought their cds.

Downloading kept me interested in music. Once people began to be sued, I quit downloading. I have only bought a couple cds since, because there is no good way to listen to a variety of music and figure out what I want anymore.

The radio definitely does not play what I want to hear. Any if I pay for a subscription to bearshare or satellite radio, then I would not also buy cds.

[StarDagger]

i am constantly STUNNED that people have been convinced to PAY for what they can download for FREE.

SHEEPLE!

You are so controlled that you are afraid to dl music in your own home?!?!?!?

If no one paid for moronic services like itunes the companies would have to go back and find another way to make money off of people.

Yours in File-sharing Plasma,
Star*Dagger

[TheGigaShadow]

Lets run with that model!

Why pay for a car when you can take one? There are parking lots full of 'em all over the place! Forget those moronic car dealerships. They'll have to find some other way to make money off of people! (I mean suckers!)

And groceries! There are many items in the grocery store I can easily fit into my pockets. Why pay for 'em?? I'm not payin' for clothes anymore either. In fact, if I can take it I'm gonna. No more payin' for anything.

Yeah man! Power to the people!

[StarDagger]

Straw man alert, you fail.

Try again.

[JShankel]

Stealing a car deprives a dealer of the opportunity to sell that car. It is his physical property.

Contrary to myth, there is no copyright law violation in receiving, reading, remembering or recording anything for personal use. The racket of making money by selling music printed on discs is not a fundamental of copyright law, it is just an accident of history that it was hard to get music any other way.

Now, UPLOADING, distributing, selling someone else's copyrighted material, that is a violation, and file sharing makes everyone who downloads also an uploader.

But you have a right to record music you hear on the radio or listen to on the internet. You have a right to keep those recordings and listen to them as much as you want. Big Content wants you to believe that whistling your favorite tune to yourself is a violation of their rights, but it isn't.

[rughead23]

Whats wronf with the radio model that got me interested in music in the first place for seemingly free before I ever heard of copyrights, or are people just not listening to the radio as musch these days?

[Eris23]

The radio, through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC paid to play the songs. So, it was free for you, but not really. The station paid fees to play the music. They covered their costs and made profit through selling advertising. As a listener, you paid through being subjected to ads.

[curiousasheck]

It's sharing man . . LOL right sure it is.

[tomorrowman58]

Please excuse me but, as a musician and composer I will say the following:
Most of you guys are talking about big name, million dollar artists like Shakira, Madonna etc who can take an economic hit.. But in reality the immense majority of musicians barely make a living nowadays, and Im talking of good , original music that must be supported or else it dies. Recordings have been a substancial part of their income untill recently...when people began thinking that it is a free commodity. It cannot be free, for many reasons. One is that music is made by poeple who have to make a living. Im not talking about mega star livelihoods, just an honest living. Artists can now skip the record co`s cause now you can even record at home. Yet even that is denied to us by all the people who download illegaly. Please pay the artists, the music will thrive and enrich this world.

[kendraro]

Many times I have discovered an artist by downloading and gone on to buy their albums, go to their concerts, buy t-shirts and tell friends about them - stopping downloading would be the WORST thing for musicians ...amazing that the record companies still don't get it.

[groosemoose]

Think: who benefits from people attending their concerts? Bands who can actually perform well -live- i.e. not Ashlee Simpson or Britney Spears or the various record-industry manufactured personalities/products.

[rbarry647]

I hope they didn't spend a lot of money on this study as to most this is a duh. You can compare it to the drug dealers first one is free marketing model.

[JeffersonState]

I owned Pink Floyd's "The Wall on vinyl, then bought a cassette, then the gold edition CD. I have paid my "right to listen license" at least three times. Seems silly that I'd have to pay for the same music yet again if I want it on my iPod.

Funny thing is, its the record companies, not the artists that have a problem with the downloading.

[kmrayburn]

First off, if you buy an album you may have a "fair use" right to download or rip the same songs to put on your ipod. It isn't crystal clear but you won't be sued if that is all you did.

Second, many artists have a problem with people downloading:

Stevie Wonder
Missy Elliott
Eve
DMX
Nelly
Shakira
Britney Spears
Mary J. Blige
Sean (P. Diddy) Combs
Vanessa Carlton
The Barenaked Ladies
Mandy Moore
Kelly Price
Jim Donovan
Eminem
Elton John
Neil Young
Don Henley
Steven Curtis Chapman
Martina McBride
Sheryl Crow
Brooks & Dunn
Brad Paisley
Vince Gill
Keith Urban
Dixie Chicks

To see the exact quotes from these artists against the illegal downloading of their music go to http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

[JeffersonState]

Well, I wouldn't want to piss off Many Moore, I better go revise my playlist.

[kmrayburn]

Apparently Shakira changed her tune this week and now supports people illegally downloading her music.

http://www.popeater.com/2009/10/21/shakira-illegal-downloading/

Shakira said, "It's the democratization of music in a way. And music is a gift. That's what it should be, a gift."

I look forward to Shakira announcing that all her concerts for now on will be free or at least at production costs because her music is a gift. It is pretty easy for an artist to say their music is a gift and should be free AFTER they became rich by selling their music... Will she give all her money back to her fans as well?

Copyright in the Internet Age
http://nextgencopyright.blogspot.com

[kingJex21MC]

does that mean dmx is gonna pretend he's a federal agent again and start tracking down illegal downloaders?

a large majority of the people on this list don't even make music anymore or haven't for a long time.

[JShankel]

Actually, you have a fair use right to it even if you don't buy it. You have a right to record broadcasts.

[ReedYoung]

Their corporate lawyers are misinforming them.

[rughead23]

I agree with you about having paid my "right to listen." Are the new younger consumers going to make the same investments like cassettes, cd's and concerts to support the artists?

[kmrayburn]

Concerts yes, cds and cassettes no, unless they somehow find a way to add value that the younger consumers will be willing to pay for. I doubt album artwork is enough.

[kmrayburn]

But what does the poll really mean? It could be that almost everyone in the UK who enjoys music has downloaded music illegally, leaving only those that are rather disinterested in music in the non-downloading category. It seems reasonable to believe that those who like music the most, and thus most likely to listen to music, are also those that have at some point downloaded illegally. To me, the poll really says nothing that we can accurately analyze.

Does it really matter if, as the poll suggests, people who download music illegally also buy the most music. The fact that they download some music illegally means that they are likely buying LESS than they would if they couldn't download illegally. Sure, people would not pay full price for every song they download illegally, but the fact that they are downloading it means they place SOME value on the music. If the price point in the market met that value, they would arguably pay for it. Because you can download most songs for about a dollar online, it is hard to believe that people would not buy the music they download illegally if they were prevented from downloading illegally. So, the labels and artists may get MORE money from downloaders than non-downloaders, but they are getting less than they would if the pirates stopped downloading. That's the important point often left out of the discussion.

Copyright in the Internet Age
http://nextgencopyright.blogspot.com

[groosemoose]

You're assuming they would have purchased what they downloaded. Maybe they saved their spare spending money for the best, and were only checking out the other songs. In which case, those bands had exposure they otherwise wouldn't have. If they play a concert in that town, the person might pay attention to their band name they otherwise wouldn't have, and might shell out money. It's all advertising.

The person who suffers in this scenario is the middleman, the RIAA.

[rughead23]

Right, because when I could afford to add to my music collection I added the music I enjoyed the most and there is exposure.

[Eris23]

When it comes to the garbage pop industry, I think you are pretty much on the money. A lot of people download crap they never would have bought in the first place. It doesn't make it right. But, when the BS recording industry tries to use it as an example of lost sales, all while they've been pushing the same damn formula for over a decade, there's no demonstrable truth to it.

[cannante]

this discussion KILLS me
both metaphorically and physically

newsflash:
this is not music we are talking about, we are talking about RECORDINGS!!!

recordings are not music.
they are a manipulation tool, referring your memory to the past.
at BEST they are a PORTRAIT of music from before.

music is a living thing in the moment.
recordings KILL classical music.
as an opera singer, it is my job to shake the air.
amplification is for wimps.
and it also kills singing. ANOTHER reason we have no good music these days.
anytime the air and audience is polluted with electrical sound, it is worthless my, or any classical artist trying to perform for them, kind of like giving someone caviar after a pint of ice cream.

the funny thing is watching chicken littles and petrified, small "music industry" (which is neither, it is a petroleum industry (what do you think recordings are made out of?) and it keeps real musicians idle, since everyone has resorted to recordings, nobody plans on live performances anymore, and people like me see their livelihood and joy stolen.

the irony, is with all the frantic shoring up of the monopoly on repression the 'music industry' has inflicted on it's patsy consumers, including jail time for "violators" of copywright (perhaps the pin edge of the wedge cracking open ownership laws, and killing capitalism) ACTUALLY NEUTRALIZES their best source of income.

GREAT EXAMPLE of corporate culture being willing to buy the rope with which to hang itself!

[RedDogBear]

So you want me to stop listening to Brahms, Beethoven, Mahler, etc. by some of the greatest conductors and orchestras in the world and only listen to them when I can get to a live concert? Give me a break. I like live music as well but the idea that we should just ditch recordings so you can make a better living is kind of dumb. And by the way plenty of people still play live music, you just have to be really, really, good. I played the french horn in high school but I realized once I got to college there was no way I was talented enough to make a living at it unless I wanted to lead a HS band or orchestra (which is quite an honorable thing to do, just not what I wanted).

[JShankel]

You don't think that maybe listening to recordings gives the average person the opportunity to broaden their musical palate and enrich their appreciation?

How many live performances can the typical person attend in a week? Two? Three? I need more music than that.

[isaidit]

I got a buddy out in CA who has an interesting rationalization for pirating. He only listens to blues music and he says if blues musicians gett too well-off that goes against they very nature of the blues. So he reckons pirating their music keeps them qualified to sing and play the blues. I think he has a point and would follow his example, except I like all sorts of stuff besides the blues. Anyway, I really don't see why record companines need to make so much money offa artitsts. It's just not ethical to me how they exploit the people who actually make music, and so I think they deserve the whol piracy phenom. Matter o' fact, I'ma go find something to download right now.

[BlackLight]

That's ridiculous. They should stay in poverty and pain so that he can enjoy their pain via their music?

Should the crooks then hope that he keeps a good paying job so they can bash him in the head and take his money regularly?

It's a similar rationalization.

[isaidit]

I agree, but my buddy says he's keeping them fit for their art. If NIN is not the blues because they got moola up the shnozzle, then how can B.B. King be the blues still? He shoulda siwtched to straight rock and roll. Same goes for Clapton, goes for Bonnie Raitt, and for Buddy Guy. They ain't po' and lonely no mo. So their singing "the blues" is like athiest singing gospel.

[hypnotoad72]

Piracy is piracy. The labels racket doing the exploiting is the worst form of piracy of them all.

[isaidit]

'xactly, and therefore downloading is the way to force them to change their business model. And in the meantime, we don't see Nora Jones or Metallica or of them out their doing the starvin' artist routine. It's the suits feeling the pinch and they deserve to feel it.