boycott-riaa.com - Article: Legal downloads jumped 900% in 2004

Legal downloads jumped 900% in 2004

Posted by vintersorg on January 20, 2005 at 7:14 PM (printer friendly)

src: The Register
-

By Tony Smith
Published Wednesday 19th January 2005 15:06 GMT

More than 200m songs were downloaded from legal online music stores around the world last year - a 900 per cent increase over 2003's total, the music industry organisation IFPI said today.

By our estimation, based on Apple's publicly provided figures, Apple accounted for 90-95 per cent of the market.

Welcoming the brave new world of digital downloads and DRM restrictions, IFPI released its Digital Music Report 2005 today. Its conclusion: digital music is proliferating, but plenty more needs to be done to raise awareness of legal download services and to stamp on unauthorised ones.

According to the IFPI, 2004 was a watershed in online sales. By the end of the year, some 230 legal download services were operating in 30 countries, compared to around 50 at the end of 2003.

The recording companies saw their first significant revenues from the digital market, "running into several hundred million dollars". IFPI cited market watcher Jupiter's estimation of the value of the digital music market in 2004: $330m. If the recording companies are getting more than "several hundred million dollars" of this, it leaves little to share among 230 legal download companies.

Still, Jupiter estimates 2005's total will be more than double 2004's, as more punters choose to buy downloads rather than CDs or pinch stuff from the likes of Kazaa and Grokster. Is there really a move away from free downloads? It's hard to say, but a survey conducted in the six biggest European music markets on IFPI's behalf, show that 31 per cent of music downloaders claim they will buy from legal services in 2005, up from almost one in five (22 per cent) this time last year.

Campaigns to help promote legal downloads help, but more needs to be done, to raise awareness of the availability of legal services among the key 16-29 age group, among whom only half have even heard of legal download sites, IFPI claims.

We argue that more needs to be done to balance the price of downloads with the restrictions and audio quality limitations imposed upon the tracks by the music industry, particularly given the trend toward ever cheaper CDs.

Positive reinforcement

Making punters care will even harder. IFPI reckons 70 per cent of music downloaders are aware that it's illegal to download from unauthorised sites, but there's little sign that downloading this way has lessened. There may be fewer songs being shared, in part thanks to the Recording Industry Ass. of America's high-profile legal campaign, as well as more restrained moves made by the RIAA's European counterparts; but anecdotal evidence suggests 'illegal' downloading is taking place more than ever.

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that active downloarders are downloading tracks they wouldn't otherwise have purchased, and also tend to be high-volume music buyers. Still, plenty use it as a way of avoiding handing the pigopolists and artists their due, so the illegal download arena isn't entirely a picture of a misunderstood and victimised majority.

"The biggest challenge for the digital music business has always been to make music easier to buy than to steal," says John Kennedy, IFPI's chairman and CEO. True - so take note, IFPI members and start licensing greater volumes of content, on better terms. And work to eliminate some of the more unnecessarily restrictive DRM limitations you place on your songs. Remember, a happy customer will be a customer again.

You know you can do it. �

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


independentm...	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 2:31 PM "Legal" downloads? The title is misleading (of course!) By "Legal" they mean RIAA sanctioned and DRM infested. They didn't count a single download from dmusic or other very legal music site... nor from any indie artist's webpages. We must educate the public! Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy Support Local and Independent Music!

gdZiemann	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 2:47 PM "More than 200m songs were downloaded from legal online music stores around the world last year" ...at 99 cents each, thus leading to... "market watcher Jupiter's estimation of the value of the digital music market in 2004: $330m."

wet1	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 3:34 PM I see the spin doctors have been at it once again. Figures don't match the projected income to the amount d/led. No where in this is any account or acknowledgement of there being free legal downloads. If pay for's jumped 900% where is the "poor music industries" we are being ripped off? Guess they can't put both in the same article can they? Next month I guess we will be back to the majors are just barely making it. This is sort of like Big Macs have sold over 10 million or whatever the figure is today. Prehaps in the interest of equal advertisment they should mention how much p2p has gained in the same time frame. Somehow I don't think they will do that as they always present a one sided picture. If legal d/ls, DRM infested as they are, gained 900% then when you have a small pie and a gain happens it reflects larger numbers. No doubt that p2p has gained even more.

wet1	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 3:50 PM There is one other thing. The iPod site is the test horse of the majors. They want badly for the selling on the internet to work. Whats not to like about it? Effective distrubution without trucks, warehouses, or record stores. They have basically thrown mom and pop stores out the window and have shrunk the shelf space once available to the customer by dealing with the chains. The customer hasn't a choice in what they want. Between the lack of pressing and sharp drop off of "units shipped", there is simply less to go around for the customer to pick from. Now that the chains have told them if they want to continue to do business with them, they will have to reduce the price per album, they see sales dwindling. The solution is to use the virtual shelf space of the internet, which could be endless. To do that they have to leave no other choice to the customer if DRM is to float. As long as the customer has a choice, they will go elsewhere; and they are.

hawk7771	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 4:09 PM Legal music downloads rocket in 2004 Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:00 AM GMT http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NVJ1YP4VTNX1YCRBAEZSFEY?type=internetNews&storyID=7366590 By Adam Pasick LONDON (Reuters) - Online music stores have broken into the mainstream, with more than 200 million tracks sold in the United States and Europe in 2004, a tenfold increase from the previous year, data shows. Among well-known brands like iTunes and Napster, the number of online music stores quadrupled to more than 230 in 2004, according to the report from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) trade group. The number of songs available online has doubled to about 1 million songs. The IFPI said research firm Jupiter expects the $330 million (176 million pounds) online music market to double in 2005. The increasing popularity of online music stores is welcome news to a music industry that blames digital piracy for more than two years of precipitous sales declines. "The biggest challenge for the digital music business has always been to make music easier to buy than to steal. At the start of 2005, as the legitimate digital music business moves into the mainstream of consumer life, that ambition is turning into reality," IFPI Chairman and Chief Executive John Kennedy said. ( IFPI represents the recording industry worldwide with over 1450 members in 75 countries and affiliated industry associations in 48 countries.) More than 7,000 legal actions have been launched against alleged uploaders in Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Britain and the United States. "Although piracy has not been eradicated, it may be reaching saturation," investment bank CSFB's ( Credit Suisse First Boston ) media team wrote in a research note this week. "Usage of peer-to-peer networks peaked in the U.S. in 2003 after displaying near-exponential growth beforehand." Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/08/1008topnews.html Massachusetts Finds CSFB 'Smoking Gun' Dan Ackman, 10.08.02, 9:20 AM ET NEW YORK - Securities regulators in Massachusetts have found what they describe as a "smoking gun" in the case against Credit Suisse First Boston--internal documents that could lead to criminal charges against the firm and perhaps technology banking superstar Frank Quattrone. The documents, the existence of which were first reported in USA Today and the Boston Globe, appear to link favorable research reports to the payment of investment banking fees by two companies, Research In Motion (nasdaq: RIMM - news - people ) and Pilot Network Services. "This is clearly a smoking gun in the area of criminal responsibility, especially as it pertains to Mr. Quattrone," Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, the state's top securities regulator, told USA Today. CSFB not only raised money for RIM when it traded near its height, but Quattrone personally endorsed its product, the BlackBerry pager. The smoking gun--or guns--are apparently e-mails showing that CSFB investment bankers touted biased stock research as a marketing edge in drumming up new clients. The bank, which was a leader in bringing Internet and other technology companies to market, told one tech firm, Virata, that "CSFB stands by its clients." It depicted stock price charts showing that its analysts did not cut ratings on a stock despite bad news from a company, while competitors did. I see the spin doctors have been at it once again.

DeadMan2003	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 4:52 PM Looks like you pasted a little too much. But anyhow. They are all full of shit.

gdZiemann	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 4:55 PM Nielsen says 140 million paid downloads took place in the U.S. in 2004, meaning the rest of the world only accounted for 60 million. Apple is reported to have 90 to 95% of the world market, which means they sold a minimum of 180 million. It also means that the other 229 "legal" song sellers only sold 10-20 million between them, worldwide. As for the 900% increase, this is the standard upramp for a new idea. Albums, cassettes, 8-tracks, cassette singles, CD singles -- the sales graphs of each format all have the same pattern. Theoretically, they should have introduced a new format about 7 years ago. Instead, they spent their time making DRM.

awehr	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 5:38 PM "More than 200m songs were downloaded from legal online music stores around the world last year - a 900 per cent increase over 2003's total" and this is supposed to mean what exactly? when a market is new to consumers, it starts out VERY WEAK. I'd be surprised not to see growth.. You can't trust those figures until they've been established for at least 5 years. since it's only been 2, i'd quiet down.

awehr	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 5:44 PM "There may be fewer songs being shared, in part thanks to the Recording Industry Ass. of America's high-profile legal campaign" yeah.. and there may be genetically engineered pigs with wings.. the statistics from big champaigne are clear.. P2P downloading is UP 35% this year, and the number of tracks on p2p have increased by 200 million titles since they started their "sue em all" campaign. FABRICATE ALL THE 'FACTS' YOU WANT, JUST DONT THINK I'LL BELIEVE THEM>

awehr	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 5:49 PM I'm VERY surprised to see the register of all sites trumpeting this garbage. It's obvious theyre pulling these figures right out of their arse.. The writer and editor for this article should be fired forthwith.

wet1	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 5:55 PM "...but anecdotal evidence suggests 'illegal' downloading is taking place more than ever." Missed that, knew it had to be in there somewhere. Yet another paid for ad for the music majors, touted as news. "The biggest challenge for the digital music business has always been to make music easier to buy than to steal..." There has been no arguement that paid for can work, just not under the present conditions. The reason iTunes is doing so well is that they are using the paid for music as a site to get d/ls for the iPods. I would venture that if they weren't pushing the iPod the sales would be dismal. While most of the savvy know that other mp3's can be played in the iPod, Joe Public hasn't learned how yet. As they figure out how to I would suspect they will need a new crop of buyers to keep the buying cycle going. As soon as the majority figure out how to get around this, the majors will once again be crying about the p2p. Paid for can work. Take out the DRM, put prices to something reasonable for the quality, and the sales will bloom into unheard of volumes. It is those that figure out that once the music is gone from their hds that it is of no use and will have to be purchased again at some point that will be the turn off. The dropping of price was demonstrated when RealNetworks came on line. They offered cut rate prices to get the business started. Even iTunes saw a drop in sales during this time, showing that the consumer still considers the price to high and the service is not a factor compared to price. This is a sort of con job. Anytime a business will not offer refunds for bad products or for customer mistakes, you know the business knows it is on shakey ground. Don't expect the price to remain at 99 cents either. As soon as the majors think they got the market locked up, they will be jacking the price. E-line businesses will have no choice but to pass on those increases to the consumer. As it is, 99 cents is no bargain for the product.

mpowellmpowell	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 6:21 PM I just heard the news that the RIAA is being really cruel to music downloaders Here's what they wrote: A trial against P2P operators has garnered a pair of convictions today, the first of its kind in the United States' fight against the file sharing industry. Two men plead guilty to violating a number of copyright infringement laws while operating a P2P network that oversaw the exchange of music, movies, and software. According to Reuters, "William Trowbridge, 50, of Johnson City, New York, and Michael Chicoine, 47, of San Antonio, face up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 in the criminal convictions stemming from an August raid, the department said late on Tuesday." Trowbridge ran a hub called the Movie Room hub, while Chicoine ran Achenon's Alley TM. Each had sharing requirements in order to participate. While pursuing the two men, government investigators downloaded an estimated $25000 worth of copywritten material from their hubs. The two face sentencing on April 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Here's the link: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/011805.asp Found more disturbing news: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/59249

awehr	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 7:59 PM a plea bargain does not equal conviction. It's just another case of unlimited pockets being triumphant over the forces of justice.

chrisbacke	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 10:10 PM Not all downloads cost 'only' 99 cents. Some cost even more, which I think is completely outrageous. All the same, I'm sure that the two numbers, when not mentioned, make their legitimate services sound that much bigger or better.. OK, general questions for the readers, in terms of logistics and practicality, how do you offer a refund on a digital music file? You downloaded a string of 0s and 1s and paid for it, during which you could copy it, burn it onto a CD, make a copy to a different format (e.g. OGG), etc. The point is that you can't return a product without finding a way to deactivate or shut off every possible copy that could be created from the copy you downloaded. If you bought a book from Barnes and Noble and had the ability to copy it as easily as you can a computer file, what's to stop you from keeping the copy, returning the original, and ripping the store off?

gdZiemann	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 10:42 PM "I just heard the news that the RIAA is being really cruel to music downloaders" And follows with a story about people running a p2p network and hosting files. Same thing for the "other disturbing news" link. Neither has anything to do with downloading. Just another puff of smoke.

gdZiemann	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 10:45 PM The RIAA did not do anything, the Justice Dept. did.

MajorTreat	Date: January 20, 2005 @ 11:30 PM How many billions of download from p2P again? As fare as I am concern I will not give a penny to any RIAA member company! Once all the suckers/couward in the world realize what a rip-off these "legals" services with their DRM infestation they are going to walk away.

mroop	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 12:23 AM "a plea bargain does not equal conviction." What an idiot!

mr-nefarious	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 12:42 AM In Oz, the typical download costs $1.89 each (US$1.44). Anyone willing to pay $1.44 for a download deserves what they get.

independentm...	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 2:57 AM Now now mroop, be nice. You may be right that a plea bargain is just as good as a conviction, but you are just being mean with the name calling of those who take the time and even bother to post their thoughts/feelings in these threads. No wonder you take such "flak" and we end up in pointless/useless flame-wars from time to time. tsk tsk :) Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy Support Local and Independent Music! :noriaa:

Windowatcher	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 3:25 AM agree shmoo:)

wet1	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 4:57 AM One other thing stikes me. This is the same old line. Just like "units shipped" the value of 900% is very vague. If one guy is buying music and 9 people join him, that is 900%. Was this figure a total for the month, the year, or the time the site has been on line?

awehr	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 6:32 AM mroop: while plea bargains count on criminal records, the issue still does not go before a judge to be properly examined. plea bargains in this case are being used in the same way as RIAA "sue em all" You scare people who know little about copyright by distending the truth or otherwise misrespresenting facts, get them to plea guilty, then claim you got your "conviction" as if a judge and jury had actually looked at the facts of the case and made a pertinent ruling. What a crock.

INeedAlover	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 9:39 AM awehr hit it right on the head. Plea bargains are used as political gain. An opportunistic prosecutor would much rather get a plea bargain on a case than have the expense of a trial and risk losing anytime. Going before a judge or jury is always risky, because you never know what they will believe, or how they will interpret the law. The prosecutor knows this as well as the defendants attorney. And since copyright law is still OPEN to interpretation (since no RIAA cases about file sharers sharing or downloading have reached a judge or jury to interpet the law), it's easy to scare defendents into plea bargains.

gdZiemann	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 10:03 AM "Was this figure a total for the month, the year, or the time the site has been on line?" This was 2004 compared to 2003. Apple didn't open its online store until April of 2003 and Windows users weren't invited until that Sept. So the 900% increase is comparing the first full year of downloading sales to what they could sell to last year's audience, which comprised only 3% of the country's computer owners.

gdZiemann	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 10:28 AM mroop is NOT correct, Schmoo. It has just come here to call someone an idiot when it does not know of what it speaks. Again. These people were not convicted of anything. They pleaded guilty (which seems like it ought to be "pled guilty"). "Convict" (as a verb) means to "find or prove guilty of an offense or crime." These two guys took a plea bargain and confessed their guilt. Nothing was "found" in or by the court. No one was proven guilty.

awehr	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 10:56 AM No.. in strict legal terms (in which lawyers are trained), plea bargains carry the same legal weight upon the criminal record as convictions. However, in terms of proper judicial review and case law, plea bargains do not represent a full and proper process of judicial review. In a sense, it is a method of contract used to forego the constitutional right to a fair trial by consent of both parties.. The problem is the prosecution always has the upper hand in being (in most cases) in physical control over the victim, who has only one lawyer whom he can trust for proper information, and who in most cases will not know enough specifics to provide for the soundest decision.

awehr	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 10:56 AM in other words.. mroop was half right.. and my particular diction was half wrong.

gdZiemann	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 11:37 AM My dictionary is superceded by Black's Law. I hate it when mroop is right. :( "[c]onviction is defined as '[t]he act or process of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime; the state of having been proved guilty.' ;" 64 S.W.3d at 879-80 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 335 (7 th ed. 1999)). "The verb convict is defined as '[t]o find (a person) guilty of a criminal offense either upon a criminal trial, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere (no contest).'" Id . at 880 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 335). From Footnote 4 of this decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/092003/&invol=60902_2003

wet1	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 2:38 PM If anything, I tend to think the corrections mroop adds to the site are needed. Whether it be me or someone else, we still need a reality check from time to time, mroop provides that.

mroop	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 3:36 PM "Now now mroop, be nice. You may be right that a plea bargain is just as good as a conviction, but you are just being mean with the name calling of those who take the time and even bother to post their thoughts/feelings in these threads." The reason I called him an idiot is because he is always making pronouncements on legal matters when he doesn't have the slightest clue about what he is talking about. I usually ignore his rank stupidity and ignorance, but sometimes it's too much.

mroop	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 3:38 PM "in other words.. mroop was half right.. and my particular diction was half wrong." Like this - "my particular diction"? This makes no godamn sense! He tries to sound intelligent and just ends up making a fool of himself. He just speak like a normal human being, instead of trying to sound like an intellectual and failing miserably.

mroop	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 3:41 PM "No.. in strict legal terms (in which lawyers are trained), plea bargains carry the same legal weight upon the criminal record as convictions. However, in terms of proper judicial review and case law, plea bargains do not represent a full and proper process of judicial review." Again with the pseudo-lawyer bullshit! I hate to say it but ..... what an idiot!

awehr	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 5:13 PM And i hate to say it but.. what a child. I gave you credit in the points where you were right and still you're arrogant enough to believe your highly slanted misconception of the world is reality. Fine.. contine to bark, yelp, and crap on me, because you obviously have this deep rooted psychological need to feel superior to all those around you. I have no problem being the object of your incessantly expelled hot air.

gdZiemann	Date: January 21, 2005 @ 11:03 PM "He just speak like a normal human being" I usually ignore his rank stupidity and ignorance...