Thanks, that makes a bit of sense then.

You’re right, except that the Jupiter study has categories of “Digital Music Buyers”, “Music Buyers”, and “Physical Only Buyers”. I’m pretty sure the “Physical Only Buyers” is referring to CDs.

I’m pretty sure these statistics are derived from the first graph (pg1) of http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Jupiter_Research_study_on_online_piracy.pdf

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
17% of music sharers vs. 13% of music buyers “Bought songs online”
17 / 13 = 1.307. 1.307 – 1 = .307 ~= 31%
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
8% of music sharers vs. 6% of music buyers “Bought albums online”
8 / 6 = 1.333. 1.333 – 1 = .333 ~= 33%
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
4% of music sharers vs 2% of music buyers “Paid monthly subscription for music”.
4/2 = 2. A 2-fold increase is 100%, right? So, it’s 2 – 1 = 100%
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
8% of music sharers vs. 5% of music buyers “Paid for music on my mobile phone”
8 / 5 = 1.6. 1.6 – 1 = .6 ~= 60%

I think it’s extremely dishonest to widely claim results are based on a scientific study without actually publicizing the study.

Plus, I don’t think the data on the first 3 pages supports their conclusions (see @69).

say that to yourself as you r listening to other people’s hard work for free as you are getting through your day listening to stolen music at your job whilst getting paid at your job!

Do you, by any chance, work at the American Department of Redundancy Department of America?

Also, what you said has nothing to do with the argument that putting out an album and expecting a constant flow of cash for it is nothing like working a day, getting paid for a day, and repeating.

Let me remind everyone again that CDs are also digital music! Get it through your thick skulls already! Only LPs and cassettes are analog.

Itunes lets u sample and buy individual songs – you dont have to buy the whole album.

I found this so offensive

“Can’t really call producing music a job”

say that to yourself as you r listening to other people’s hard work for free as you are getting through your day listening to stolen music at your job whilst getting paid at your job!

If you already have the song in your possession free why would you then decide to go buy that same song and put another copy on your hard drive to listen to?

There’s an article about that you could read.

I downloaded Ke$ha’s new album Animal yesterday and I thanked God I didn’t buy that shit. The only good song was Tik Tok, the rest were pure crap. Hell, even Lady Gaga sounds like Mozart compared to that HAHAHAHA.

Bottom line is – make good music = more sales. Make 1-2 good song(s) but the other 18 crap, and you shouldn’t really expect to sell a bucket load of discs

Illegally downloading for free is not being a valuable customer.

If you already have the song in your possession free why would you then decide to go buy that same song and put another copy on your hard drive to listen to?

I guess if you couldn’t get tracks that you wanted for free to have on your players/entertainment devices you would have to buy them thus giving sales to the artist to support them and their music – so there would be sales.

Or I could go with the free and legal alternatives available.

Do you really think that file sharers, many of which have strong anti-RIAA sentiments, would just become paying customers if piracy were impossible? No. They would find another way to use file sharing, or start distributing copylefted music. See, the RIAA also thought that suing your customers and forcing DRM on them will make you look good in their eyes… look how far that got them…

Artists/Bands that release music with the intention of trying to make a living should have a say in how their creations are distributed.

Can you supply any substantive arguments to support this?

p2p is not making a copy for friends or family – the song is being distributed without permission to squillions of file sharers for free without any thought to the creator of the music and how he will continue to make a living.

You’re making an unfair assumption on the part of everyone who downloads a copy. Who’s to say that people who download won’t buy? After all, isn’t that the subject of this very article you’re commenting on?

Sorry I know I am very much in the minority here – I guess I just don’t understand coz I go to work and get paid and I buy music so that the artists that I love also gets paid for his creative work.

Dude, you sound almost as bad as neostyles. Making blanket generalizations? That’s a trick of his. He’s commonly referred to as a troll, too, because of stupid tricks like these.

I wouldn’t continue to work at a job that I didnt get paid for

Can’t really call producing music a job. With an actual job, you get paid as you work. You work more, you get paid more. With producing music, you work once and feel entitled to payment for the rest of your life.

thus the quality of music in this free for all world will suffer!

Um, people are going to create music even if we get rid of all financial incentives to do so. Music was made for thousands of years before it was possible to sell copies of it. Free music is made nowadays.

I havent been reading any proganda except on here lol – I am just saying that I think it is fair and honorable to pay for music like you would do for any other product you wanted.

Really? Because I think it’s kind of nonsensical to pay for copies of something that is not scarce, especially for every copy you acquire. I also think it is more fair and honorable to protest against the broken copyright system that we have. You want to see fairness for artists? Support copyright reform.

So are you saying the pirates that are the best customers of the music industry should stop buying?

If the artist/bands wants to give away songs to promote themselves to gain a fanbase that is their call.

Artists/Bands that release music with the intention of trying to make a living should have a say in how their creations are distributed. p2p is not making a copy for friends or family – the song is being distributed without permission to squillions of file sharers for free without any thought to the creator of the music and how he will continue to make a living. Unless you are an established artist that fills huge venues – touring doesn’t make money after everyone gets their little slice of the pie.

Sorry I know I am very much in the minority here – I guess I just don’t understand coz I go to work and get paid and I buy music so that the artists that I love also gets paid for his creative work. I wouldn’t continue to work at a job that I didnt get paid for thus the quality of music in this free for all world will suffer!

I havent been reading any proganda except on here lol – I am just saying that I think it is fair and honorable to pay for music like you would do for any other product you wanted.

Runs for the hills now – have a good day people!

Basically my point is that if copyright can only belong to the creator and their immediate family, then the industry (i.e. corporations) could never own them. It would make it more difficult to rip the artists off. This can be achieved by outlawing the transfer of copyrights (outside of wills). Putting the ownership of copyrights solely in the creator’s hands would end most of the current problems. By no means, though, am I advocating any extension of copyright. It needs to go back to at most the standard 50 years which is more than enough.

Actually, yes I can read. Hence the reason I posed my question. Ernesto’s article clearly states that although he could not get the full report he did manage to find those statistics in the 3 page section he links to. He also states that those are the music industry’s statistics. If he is quoting statistics, he has a source, and I was curious where, exactly, the source was found as it did not appear in the documents he linked to. The full quote in the article (in case you don’t want to bother scrolling back up) is as follows:

“Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer.”

Geez… another Internet poster who blindly accepts the MAFIAA’s propaganda about p2p.

Never stopped to consider whether file sharing has any positive effects, did you?

Never thought about how mass digital distribution builds a much larger fanbase than it otherwise would have, did you?

Never figured you should challenge the idea that a download is a lost sale, did you?

You’re correct: digital downloads are the future. Copyright reform is also the future. The sooner we see changes that legalize file sharing, the better.

@dude

Young Bands have no option but to tour constantly (which means less time in the studio to be creative) working their bums off because of no sales coming in from their music because their so called fake fans are illegally downloading their songs It may create jobs for the people that support the tour, but artist/bands have to pay up front all costs from the tour and the cut to the touring band is usually break even or most times the tour is a loss – so how does the artist continue to be an evolving artist without any income coming in?

so Dude do you go to and pay for tickets to go to live performances of the bands that you pirate music from ? not picking on you… just saying hon ?

unless you are a high profile artist that can absorb piracy of songs and tour to full houses – you are doomed to never ever making it beyond momentary interest because if your music is just not selling you will disappear and lose that potential to be a truly brilliant superband of the future that we will never hear because – you are dead in the water from lack of sales…. lots of bands from the 70s 80s 90s did not make it until their 3rd or 4th album – after each release they sold more and more from building a following and went on to become career band/artists that were respected by their fans and the music industry!

I miss those times and I will miss the disappearing record store with the physical cd and coverart but I am also loving my iTunes library – digital downloads are the future.

and those people who dont buy music would rather save that $10 to save up for a kick ass sound setup or towards a entertainment setup.

vinyl is the only thing worth buying these days. nothing replaces the deep base and treble levels. a digital medium can’t create in anyway. which have higher pitches in a stereo and surround sound outputs. vinyl can only be mono or stereo. or maybe blu-ray media. in a year will be the new main pirated media clogging the pipes all over.

But the report’s kind of stating the obvious that file sharers are more likely to buy single tracks and albums online than non-file sharers.

That said, I think record shops are cool. There is something about holding it in your hand. It’s sad to see them go.

According to IFPI report there is no number 1. They are reporting 100 percent of the pirates are paying customers. be it a subscription service, physical or digital media and so on.

Even most popular and household name artists support filesharing such as 50 Cent, Chuck D, Nelly Fertado, Shakira, Norah Jones, Radiohead, Blur’s Dave Rowntree, Rednex, to name a few.

1) the bad ones who download loads and NEVER buy any music/dvds because they are getting it for free.

and

2) Those who use torrents to find new content and preview their media and purchase the stuff they really like.

I fall into number 2. Without torrents i know for a fact i would not have spent no way near as much on dvds and music.

But we all know that these greedy fat cats want more money for themselves rather than the artists. You think these middleman were set up for the artists benefit?

They just want to sell more CDs that’s where most of the money comes in from. Digital sales are less profitable for these greedy men. They have the power to sway the gov’t to go after the people that actually bring in money (from their own reports).

Watch this video for more insight about the actual truth.

Some experts claims that this “false-start” was a great advertising. Hundreds of thousands downloaded this album because it was available before it’s opening night. And some percentage of this people becomes a new fans.

…those are just the beefs I have with the format. I will have to mention here that THEY COST MONEY.

How is that going to compete with a FREE download from a torrentsite?

I don’t buy any media anymore. Just merchandise. When I drive by an HMV I snicker at those inside.

If I like the band/movie/program I buy the T-shirt/beach towel/toy. From the artist’s own website if possible.

Bottom Line: There is no value if the product is laying around like leaves in a yard. Those leaves will be RAKED IN. FOR FREE.

Those who create the product must protect it. Not leave it around like a car idling in their driveway.

Protecting the product should probably NOT include; Trying to get communications tech banned, suing/alienating the prospective customers or pressuring governments to enact unenforceable laws/censorship…That path will fail as the genie is out of the proverbial bottle.

I consider myself to be an average modern consumer. Everyone in my family has cell phones so we don’t pay for land lines(obsolete). We have three separate internet connections at our house so no cable/satellite bill(also obsolete). We are members of multiple private torrent sites, run computers with many terabytes of storage and post on torrentfreak thru paid proxies. There are millions like us. More everyday.

IT’S NOT THAT WE AREN’T WILLING TO PAY! SELL US SOMETHING WE CAN USE!!

This is a pet peeve of mine. I wish that copyright wasn’t (essentially) forever, and if works have not been maintained by IP holders (ie- they haven’t released a version of it, or made that original version available again) it falls into the public domain for anyone to choose to reissue.

When you buy the milk (or any other physical product) there is an implicit understanding between customer and merchant that this item will fulfill some need or function for you. If it does not, you take it back, hand them the thing and the reciept, you say “this thing is $_bad-state, I want my monies back”. They say “Sir yes sir”, and all is well. Rarely, there are merchants that simply don’t do refunds for any reason, but these folks typically have signs clearly stating so; you know up front that you’re stuck with it even if it’s not quite right.

This _IS_NOT_THE_CASE_ with “products” that are primarily information delivered on a physical storage medium. Most places (here in the US, at least), you cannot bring back an opened musicCD/videoDVD/software and get a refund under any circumstances, even if you have legitimate technical problems making that media function correctly or at all. (many places will take back _sealed_ media, but this is worthless point for anyone but the “oh bother, I got two of this for Bday/$_holiday” crowd) The minions will generally be apologetic, but won’t budge from policy. (which was probably coerced by the MAFIAA… before or after they started FUD-ing on file sharing??? who knows) Those same minions probably know that feet are being shot, but they get in trouble if they don’t follow The Rules their employer sets down.

I can hear the rebuttal already: “But it’s established policy that they don’t refund, so you can’t bitch about it!” A marginally valid point, save for this: THEY DON’T HAVE A GIANT FRACKING SIGN OVER THE MEDIA SAYING “NO REFUNDS”. At the vast majority of merchants, the _general_ rule is that you can return things, with reciept, withing reasonable time from date of purchase. No sign saying otherwise (for media), so a (technically false) assumption is made.

All that, on top of being offered a selection that heavily reinforces Sturgeon’s Law (90% of all is crap), is it any wonder so many people are trying before they buy???

I happily download anything I wish to hear. If a music album can muster more than two songs I truly enjoy, I’ll go buy the CD, if I’m able; there’s really awesome electronica coming out of Eastern Europe, and some of it is tough-as-balls to chase down to buy, in any format. If a good artist happens to be part of the RIAA Empire, I’ll find the disc second-hand or go without. I do not support their asshattery under any circumstances.

Otherwise, frack em for not trying hard enough during production. I’ve bought a few steaming turds, back in the 90s… Never again.

Currency does not grow on trees for the average person. No one likes to throw money away, common man nor corporate overlord. Taking our money for vastly inferior products, not allowing refunds… _THAT_ is stealing, regardless of how many politicians you grease, laws you buy, or websites you shut down.

We are fighting back, plain and simple.

Now that you have created it you should use the checklist every article a RM (or neocon) appears in the comments :-) All that hard work should be put to good use, would be such a waste otherwise.