Illegal music downloads are 'on the rise'

[busybeeburns]

The BPI is calling for people to pay for their music to help boost homegrown artists including Adele

 

Illegal music downloads are 'on the rise'

 

Illegal downloading in the UK is growing, with around 7.7 million people choosing not to legitimately buy their music online, according to new figures.

 

A report suggests that more than 1.2bn tracks were illegally downloaded last year, costing the retail industry £1bn.

 

The British Recorded Music Industry (BPI) commissioned research based on internet users' habits.

 

BPI boss Geoff Taylor said illegal downloading was becoming a "parasite".

 

The report has claimed that more than three quarters of music downloaded in the UK is illegally obtained, with no payment to the musicians, songwriters or music companies producing it.

 

This is despite a digital music market in the UK which is served by 67 legal downloading services. The report said that illegal mp3 pay sites and cyberlockers - sites offering space to store illicit files - are "rising alarmingly".

 

It added that there is still no effective deterrent against illegal downloading and new legislation is "urgently needed".

 

"It is a parasite that threatens to deprive a generation of talented young people of their chance to make a career in music, and is holding back investment in the burgeoning digital entertainment sector," Mr Taylor said.

 

He called for swift action be taken to help "Britain to achieve its potential in the global digital market". Earlier this year the BPI reported that music sales in the UK had grown for the first time in six years.

 

It said that legal downloads had boosted sales, rising by more than 50% to earn £154 million, compared with £101.5 million in 2008. They are expected to reach 160 millions sales this year, an increase of more than 10 million in 2009.

 

This year also saw I Gotta Feeling by Black Eyed Peas become the first single to sell more than one million digital copies.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12003499

[The Escapist]

I would be concerned if artists still weren't making as much money as they used to.

[Italian Plastic]

I only buy music from independant labels/artists. They actually need the money.

[ivet]

i don't really feel guilty for not buying but like 5% of my music.

music sharing is a beautiful resource that's out there and i take advantage of it.

[deaths_friend]

i don't really feel guilty for not buying but like 5% of my music.

music sharing is a beautiful resource that's out there and i take advantage of it.

 

THIS.

[The Escapist]

I only buy music from independant labels/artists. They actually need the money.

 

THIS. If I bought all my music I would be broke but I spend more on music than the average person anyway and I download heaps of shit so I don't see what the problem is.

[deaths_friend]

THIS. If I bought all my music I would be broke but I spend more on music than the average person anyway and I download heaps of shit so I don't see what the problem is.

 

yeah i think ive poured close to $1500 into the music industry this year alone when you include concert tickets, albums and magazines.

[ViVA Child]

Coldplay is the only music I pay for.

 

In hard copy usually.

[Notion]

i don't really feel guilty for not buying but like 5% of my music.

music sharing is a beautiful resource that's out there and i take advantage of it.

 

This, and what Eddie said too.

[Darlene_Ihnfsa]

yeah i think ive poured close to $1500 into the music industry this year alone when you include concert tickets, albums and magazines.

yeah i don't see much the point when they complain about selling less cds legally, as if magazines, merchandise and concert tickets were free.

 

i agree with ivet and ed, thought i mostly listen music on stream mode, not download per se.

 

and btw for whatever reason music in spain is way expensive than is in other european countries, and yet the industry wonder how so many lot of people download it all illegaly, why i'd pay 25€ for a physical copy on the release date when they will reduce it in some months to 10€... and then why i'd pay 10€ if i can download it for free cause i'll attend a concert and i already bought their t-shirt (say 12€ and 12€ each, they will get 24€ from me anyways, don't they? )

 

it all is showing the real interest and creativity of some artist, which are few who do so, as those who offer free download, or ask you to follow them paying monthly but getting free stuff from time to fime, or offer special packs, when attending a concert or when buying the cd to attend a gig later.

[Lore]

we don't have mp3 stores like itunes and a cd costs more than 20 dollars so I just buy an album if I really like it. I think everyone does that here.

 

Plus I spend lots of money in concert tickets so I don't feel bad about it. Btw, average concert ticket for a random band: 50 dollars. Average concert ticket for a big band 100 dollars or even more :(

[coldplay_is_louve.]

Am I the only one in the world who agrees with the artists? :lol:

 

And I'm not talking about artists like Kanye West or Lady Gaga. The big ones who don't deserve their fame, and are pissed off about this just want their money, despite the fact they're making millions.

 

I agree with the little artists that disappear when stuff like this happens.

[fietssleutel]

I prefer buying concert tickets to actual cds, unless I REALLY love the cd or when it's super super cheap. On average I still buy a cd once every two weeks though. And yeah, I don't see the problem either because I would never buy as much music as I download, so the claim that the music industry (cough, record labels) lost 1bn to illegal downloads is kind of exaggerated methinks. :nice:

 

 

I spend way too much money on music. :blank:

[The Escapist]

And I'm not talking about artists like Kanye West or Lady Gaga. The big ones who don't deserve their fame, and are pissed off about this just want their money, despite the fact they're making millions.

.

 

Sorry, just had to point that out. Probably not the best example. Maybe use Kesha instead?

[tauiwi]

I think its legitimate to download music to discover new artists but the best way to support bands and the industry is to go and see local live music. Support up and coming bands who need the finances and support the most so that they work up international exposure and create a position for themselves where they aren't harmed by illegal downloading.

[Politix]

I would be concerned if artists still weren't making as much money as they used to.

 

I only buy music from independant labels/artists. They actually need the money.

 

i don't really feel guilty for not buying but like 5% of my music.

music sharing is a beautiful resource that's out there and i take advantage of it.

 

THIS. If I bought all my music I would be broke but I spend more on music than the average person anyway and I download heaps of shit so I don't see what the problem is.

 

.

[laga]

I only buy the CD's I really, really like, even then, I still buy quite a lot of cd's, but I couldn't afford to pay for all the music I have. Downloading music or using sites like YouTube has helped me discover new music and in more of one occassion I ended up buying the original CD.

[hotdensestate]

Am I the only one in the world who agrees with the artists? :lol:

 

And I'm not talking about artists like Kanye West or Lady Gaga. The big ones who don't deserve their fame, and are pissed off about this just want their money, despite the fact they're making millions.

 

I agree with the little artists that disappear when stuff like this happens.

 

What do you mean exactly by "don't deserve their fame"? Pop artists make hard to create music people like, period. Ignoring the fact that I'm rather partial to the two examples you used (a bit like Bryce above me), I don't get the argument that pop stars "don't deserve their fame/money". Music is a capitalist world where people are rewarded based on popularity regardless of what an individual's taste is; to say that any pop artist "doesn't deserve their fame/money" is just a petty way of saying you don't like them and wish they weren't famous... or it seems that way to me.

 

I totally get your argument that they have money and don't need it anymore, though, and agree, basically, though. I was just nitpicking over your wording.

 

This is why everyone should be a hipster and only go see live shows and buy the CDs of small indie bands, like Eddie mentioned. Big labels especially (small labels do this, too, but not quite as badly) soak up almost all the profits from CD sales, meaning not much of CD sales trickles down to the artist. The artist gets money from marketing itself/themselves. By that I mean, they get money from doing live shows, selling merch, etc. You look at a band like Radiohead -- they put out an entire album for potentially free ranging up to however much you wanted to pay. In my opinion (not just my Radiohead-fangirl opinion), this is the way to go. Just considering the CD itself: If somebody got it and thoguht it was shit, or didn't have the resources to pay, or just didnt' give a fuck, done. They didn't get much if anything from that listener. Tough beans. In fact, most people did this. 62% didn't pay anything. But based on the (subjective, obviously) quality of the record, other people, in fact mostly people who would normally just download a leak illegally (though lots of them would possibly buy the record in stores, of course!), felt morally obligated to pay what they thought the record was worth. Most of them paid something around five to ten bucks, that is, well below normal retail price at a cheap store. But. But. Let's assume everybody paid 5 bucks, just for the sake of argument.

 

The middleman is utterly cut out. Record label gets nothing. Local record store gets nothing (sad, because I like local record stores, but beyond the point of this particular economic model). Everybody not involved directly in the production of the album (band, producers, technicians) gets nada. What does the band get? Five dollars for one copy of the album. That's 1/3 of average retail price, and that's a fucking lot, way more than they would have gotten for the sale of that album if it'd been put out on a label in stores. In this way I would estimate Radiohead made around as much as they wfould have if they'd put it out commercially (Fuck if I know, though -- but they certainly got enough. My main point coming up next is that it ultimately matters little anyway, though), AND their fans thought they were fucking awesome -- leading to something I've been ignoring: merchandise, tour tickets, et cetera. Tickets to a Radiohead concert are insane. A Radiohead shirt that probably takes a couple bucks at most to mass-produce costs $20. What I'm trying to show here is that bands don't get money from their labels, they get money from themselves, from their own marketing of themselves. That labels take such credit for bands' success are fucking pathetic now that downloads are so common. Sure, it used to be you heard a band on a CD put out by a label, but now the focus has obviously shifted back to what are the bands themselves gonna do to make money? which is the way I think it should be, and labels should just shut the fuck up and be glad that most bands aren't massive enough (like Radiohead) to follow a scheme like Radiohead did for In Rainbows.

 

My three cents. I ended up writing way more than I wanted but this post gets most of my feelings about this issue accross pretty well I think.

[deaths_friend]

i think what Radiohead did with in rainbows was wonderful, the album changed my life and it probably changed the music industry. but it doesnt work for 99% of bands out there.

 

young bands need labels to help them get off the ground. labels have the resources and know-how to market and sell music to its full potential and that takes a lot of money and effort. every band would love to just make a great album then release it online for 10 bucks and sell millions. sadly the industry isnt that simple. it takes dozens of people to make an album and then get it out there and a good label streamlines that process for a young band. unfortunately that means taking a significant cut from the profits.

 

i think bands need to accept that they need to work hard (like the rest of society) and tour hard if they want to make it in this crazy industry. they need to stop crying about people downloading their music because i can guarantee you when a band like coldplay plays to an arena 15 000 people, more than half of them would've never spent a cent on any of their albums or singles. in other words without free illegal downloads those arenas would be near empty.

[hotdensestate]

Right, I totally agree. Like I mentioned most people cannot do what Radiohead did, but in a perfect world, it would be awesome if all albums could be In Rainbows-style. And I agree that small, young bands need the labels, but especially after they get off the ground, most of it comes from the bands. I do think people should buy the CDs of bands trying to get off the ground, for sure, and I'm even okay with the labels taking so damn much of it themselves, cause they do totally help the bands get out there. But once the label's put the album out, it gets online and people download it, and then they buy the tickets for the band's touring -- besides the label acting as an initial catalyst I think it goes back to the bands themselves like I explained.

[deaths_friend]

yeah you're right but the thing is most young bands sign 5 or 6 album deals because theyre usually so desperate to get signed. so even if their first or second album does great, theyre stuck in that arrangement for a long time. so you have situations like Coldplays who single handedly seem to be keeping EMI alive even though they dont really want to be. but at the same time those sorts of contracts give a band a sense of security especially if they dont do too great.

 

do labels see any of the profits from a bands tour?

[hotdensestate]

Ah, right. To be honest, I didn't know they signed contracts that binding. Thanks for informing me.

 

As far as labels seeing band tour profits, not certain but I would assume they would be able to. It probably depends on the contract. They'd certainly want to see them so they could get an assessment of what they want to do with the band.

[Black Rose]

Adele needs more pies to eat, please buy her music so that she can have more pies and maybe even cake.

[mc_squared]

Adele needs more pies to eat, please buy her music so that she can have more pies and maybe even cake.

 

Chasing pasties?:rolleyes:

[Black Rose]

Sorry had to post that from the picture caption in Ian's post, on a serious note downloading music illegally is bad kids, it's worst than drugs dude :P

 

Artists make most of their money these days from touring & Merc sales. I can't wait in a few months time when copies of the Take That album will be going for pennies as supplies outstrip demand (it sold 1.8 million copies in the UK ago!).

 

"do labels see any of the profits from a bands tour? "

It depends on the deal