Music Industry fails to stop illegal downloads

By Derek Sooman on December 22, 2005, 7:09 PM
Well, you'll never guess what: a new survey shows that the Music Industry is failing to halt illegal downloads. Yes, as we have even been talking about recently, more than half of all consumers still download music illegally over the internet. Don't make the mistake of thinking that these crackdowns from the RIAA and MPAA, with sites being taken down and college kids taken to court is really making a difference, because it’s quite clearly not.

More than three-quarters of those surveyed admitted that they had illegally downloaded music at least once. By contrast, just one in six said they exclusively used paid-for services such as Apple's iTunes Music Store or Napster to buy music over the internet.




User Comments: 32

Got something to say? Post a comment
blue_dragon said:
Its human nature, its impossible to stop it
nathanskywalker said:
ouch, and if i must say, it is not exactly the good part of human nature. That would be selfishness, and dishonesty, knowing that you can get away with it. OKAY so shoot men, yeah i used to be a pirate... :( i admit it...
cyrax said:
i wonder if its like that quote from star wars."the more you tighen your grip. Th faster they will slip away". Treat the customers like rubbish and expect the same tratment in return.
nimo333 said:
Yes, go RIAA and MPAA to hell, for you are useless to the society. I believe that they increase the price of CDs as they have to make a profit out of it and as a result, it increases people downloading music and then these companies start suing some people for downloading music!!!So it's clearly that it's better not to have such aggressive companies who would start a war just because of .... But instead should just lower the prices because they are truly overpriced, music CDs should not be sold over $10 a CD.
Mikael said:
The RIAA and MPAA both realize that they won't be able to stop piracy, but they still are going to try their hardest.
nathanskywalker said:
i agree, music companies should definently lower their prices, that is unless they want to deal with piracy until their industry crasher...
vigilante said:
Yes they tried *ehem*sony*ehem*. And look what an outrage it caused.Fact is people want their music on their PC, at home, work, on their laptop, media player, walkman, whatever. They want the music free to use on any device. No "secret" software installed to get the music to work. No proprietary programs to have to play it. No limits on listening. No "check in check out". No blocking of doing things with it.It's like in anything, if you tell people they can't have something, the good people will obey, the bad will find another way.Just like trying to take guns out of society. All the law abiding citezens won't have them, all the criminals still will.They would be better off not spending how many millions of dollars trying to create "anti"copy music. And instead charge less for CDs and pay the musicians less. No kidding, pay the entertainers less, and we'd have cheaper movies, cheaper DVDs and VHS, cheaper CDs, cheaper concert tickets etc...but a dream...
MonkeyMan said:
Well paying almost $20 for a CD is a ripoff. I mean, this is impossible to stop. I believe they should offer a bonus of some kind, with the retail version of a music CD. At least something, that would be exclusively for the retail version of a music CD that cannot be pirated. I dunno though, it's a very controversial subject.
Kev_Boy said:
I agree, retail CDs are to expensive and if you buy them via iTunes you get restrictions embedded [b]in the file![/b] It's much less hassle to take the illegal route in that case...
dbuske said:
The RIAA hasn't been especially intelligent about who they sue. To sue ten year old kids is not very bright.I am especially upset about their strong arm centers where they try to coerce payments out of people who are scared about being sued.The case that did go to court, the RIAA lost. They were sueing the Mother of a 12 year old girl. The court found the Mother was not responsible for downloads and didn't know about them. So the RIAA turns around and sues the 12 year old asking the court to assign somone to act as temporary guardian of the child.I would counter sue and shed light on the centers where they coerce payments. That has got to be illegal.
doomsweek said:
It's impossible to stop since it's 'natural' for people to enjoy music for free, rather then paying for it.
Masque said:
It's become "natural" but shouldn't be so. I can't stand the **AA's and their tactics. I don't really know the answer. Yes, lower prices....but also less strongarms in these organizations. They've gotten so used to "old school" ways of telling everybody what to do that they desperately need a new business order. If that means getting rid of the ****** that run them, so be it. Bring in fresh people who are more receptive to change.
asphix said:
This is such a controversal issue. People get so defensive from seeing something they've grown accustom to (which they like very much) beign taken away from them they neglect to consider any moral viewpoints.Pirating music and movies is WRONG. No mater how you look at it. You cant justify it. You cant defend it. However, what the MPAA and RIAA have been doing is also WRONG. They are blatantly trying to capitalize on everything they possibly can. I'm sure if they had it their way every time you said "Brittney Spears" or "Brad Pitt" you would be charged 3 cents. I woudlnt be surprised if they somehow worked out some way to justify it as well.When it comes down to it.. its simple psychology and sociology. Positive and negative reinforcement. If the MPAA and RIAA really wanted customers to continue buying CD's over downloading music they should have come up with a strategy to make the purchasable products attractive to customers.. not try to scare them into doing as they wish.Offer CD's with bonus materal. Not material in audio format, but things like concert tickets or really cool posters. Maybe codes with which you go to a website and can redeem free downloads of some sort or another, be it music, music videos etc etc etc. Give people a reason to want to buy your media.. dont scare them into it.Of course people will rebel when you visibly try to force them to do something against their will.. THAT is human nature.
philop88 said:
No matter what technology, man-power, companies apply to prevent the illegal distibution of music, people will always find a way, loophole to get pass it. example: sony
Subservient said:
I've had enough of this. Illegal downloads promote bands. [b]Most newer bands today are being discovered through illegal downloading!![/b] Me, personally, I hear a song from a band, and if I like it, I go and buy the CD! It's as easy as that. I'm not going to go and buy a $20 CD to [b]simply find out[/b] if I like a band.RIAA and MPAA can go to hell. Long live music exposure!
barfarf said:
I agree with asphix downloading pirate music is wrong. Yet so it the RIAA. But ya know we live in a society of “entitlement”. Meaning once we get to having something we hate to give up this stem from social security to government programs to the poor living off the system for no good reason. Now I think the positives of this are bands are realizing the advantage of the p2p. They learn new marketing tips such as giving a couple free songs online or putting more content on the CDs. The big music labels were lazy in their gluttony and got left behind in the dust when Napster came along and they are still trying to catch up. Ahhh…the high price of poor business. [Edited by barfarf on 2005-12-23 10:28:29]
mofoed said:
Some good posts here, it is wrong to DL illegally but as asphix said if the RIAA and MPAA would put out some incentives with thier products then ppl might go and buy them, but then again music and movies might tax on more $$$ for those extras. But sueing 12 yr kids is not a bright tactic for those companies, it just gives a negative public sentiment.
PanicX said:
What amazes me is that movies are available on DVD media with at least 2 hours of video and audio, and also usually include a second DVD full of bonus features. You get all that for normally around $14-$20. Yet music comes on a CD which is much cheaper to produce, contains only 70 minutes of audio (usually less), and may potentially infect a PC with rootkits and other horrible forms of software, for which you're expected to pay $17-$20. Now, this would possibly make sense if the material on the discs cost more to produce. However, I defy anyone to find a single $14 movie that cost less to create than any $20 CD. The fact is that most non-independent films costs millions to create, while most music CD's cost less than $100,000.Am I the only one that feels ripped off when buying a CD? Downloading illegally is a calculated risk most people are willing to take. When it comes down to the numbers, theres less than a 0.001% chance that you will be caught and I'd rather take that risk than be ripped off.
asphix said:
[b]Originally posted by PanicX:[/b][quote]Am I the only one that feels ripped off when buying a CD? Downloading illegally is a calculated risk most people are willing to take. When it comes down to the numbers, theres less than a 0.001% chance that you will be caught and I'd rather take that risk than be ripped off.[/quote]Wow, I never thought of it that way. You are exactly right and it snaps into perspective how skewed the music industries pricing is.If i ever want a movie I always get it within a few days after release so I can get it for ~15.00 USD from walmart or the like. 15 bucks for 2 hours+ of non-repeated content seems great to me.From a production to profit standpoint music cd's are extremely over priced. Especially considering all that money goes to the Label and not the artist.. artists make all their money from extra stuff (t-shirts and the like) and their cut from live performances.I agree with you, so you're not the only one.
vigilante said:
I'm also a hunter for the "unknown" musician. I find songs out there for which I can't even find a CD.Also does it seem backwards to sue the "end" user for finding music and downloading it? If you are walking down the street and see a dollar bill on the ground and you pick it up, does that mean you're stealing from the person who lost it? Is it your fault there was a dollar, freely available within easy grasp and you took it?So is it really stealing when you use regular programs to download things that are freely available? Or is that the fault of the person who MAKES the software, who runs the SERVER to give you all those files?I'm not trying to justify downloaded music, I'm just saying, aren't they going after the wrong people? They are trying to attack this issue from the back instead of the front. Sueing random people for downloading songs is a scare tactic, not a solution to a world-wide problem.And good point about CD prices. Add to that the fact that most people buy a CD for the cover song, and maybe a few more. So you not only get LESS then 70 minutes of audio on the disk in the first place, you only really bought the disk for half of that still! Unlike a movie, which you buy for the whole thing. And being that top artists can put out a CD with a measly 10 or 11 tracks for $~18 is insane.I personally use Real Rhapsody. For $10 a month I can listen to millions of songs all I want. I can burn CDs and do other things. It's great. I find new artists all the time, new music. And being that I mostly only listen to music at my PC, it works well. Besides the occasional CD for my car. So it works best for me. And of course I can install Rhapsody at any computer and listen there as well if I really wanted to.
Strakian said:
I said this a long time ago when these guys were arresting people for illegal downloading of music. It's just like Bush's war on terror... at no point is ANYONE going to sit back and say they won.I agree with the first post. It's human nature, especially when that means college kids can save their money for things like food, shelter, clothing, and the occasional videogame. (Unless they download them too)
mtyson8 said:
Most of the downloading comes from sharing files(Limewire,ares,morpheus) and stopping that will decrease downloading by alot. MAking copies on your computer for friends isnt that big of a money loss to the industry, as youre group of friends probably buy more to copy.
flavin said:
music should be about the music not the money
otmakus said:
No matter how cheap CD price is, the fact is downloading music is free and poses almost no risk at all. Even if the CD price is 5$, more and more people will get their music by downloading them instead of buying CDs.
mentaljedi said:
Okay, it's wrong. But for goodnesss sakes, suing little girls isn't going to stop people? IT's going to make more people do it! As Palpatine from Star Wars says; "Everything is controlled by the beaureacrats!". These companies are them! I heard somewhere that if erm some company i don't lknow was a country, it would be in the top 20 nations economically i think. Or whatever, it jsut means that these companies think they're so big that they can do wathever they want! They can't go suring people, they can't stop people, they can just do what they're supposed to do. Sell good quality music. They can't do that if they're wasting money on suing children!
Phantasm66 said:
I've found some great remixes of other artist's work on the Net, some of which has been even better than the originals - all done by amateurs at home.
spike said:
...which the RIAA would no doubt consider illegal, eh P66?Me, I'm with the sampling arguement. The law can say what it likes - that doesn't make the law right. Sometimes, the law is an ass.
otmakus said:
The record companies are fighting a losing battle. They hope to scare people from downloading musics by suing people left and right, but that strategy will only backfire. Their team of lawyers facing a 12 years old girl in court is the worst PR they can get.
Crofty74 said:
The knee jerk reaction from the industry has been disgraceful, they were slow to embrace digital music and they paid the price for that and they should have taken it like a man, isntead they spat their dummies out.On embracing Digital Music there is still a huge failing, the one price suits all plan, format wars between Apple and... well everyone else and the introduction of agressive protection on physical formats.Top that of with sueing one man and his dog for piracy which I feel the industry has created for themselves by not embracing it to any great effet - still, and the industry isnt anyones favourite act at the minute - including artists.I lack any sympathy for the industry because its their failing basically and probably sums up what Im trying to say.
Kaleid said:
I see a rather bleak future with most software having DRM, you've gotta understand that the lobbying from RIAA and their counterparts for the movie industry must be rather heavy. They spend billions and billions and dollars to get what they want and eventually they'll reach it.The result will be a society where big brotherism is simply just accepted as a fact, not just something that might come.
Phantasm66 said:
[b]Originally posted by vigilante:[/b][quote]Yes they tried *ehem*sony*ehem*. And look what an outrage it caused.Fact is people want their music on their PC, at home, work, on their laptop, media player, walkman, whatever. They want the music free to use on any device. No "secret" software installed to get the music to work. No proprietary programs to have to play it. No limits on listening. No "check in check out". No blocking of doing things with it.It's like in anything, if you tell people they can't have something, the good people will obey, the bad will find another way.Just like trying to take guns out of society. All the law abiding citezens won't have them, all the criminals still will.They would be better off not spending how many millions of dollars trying to create "anti"copy music. And instead charge less for CDs and pay the musicians less. No kidding, pay the entertainers less, and we'd have cheaper movies, cheaper DVDs and VHS, cheaper CDs, cheaper concert tickets etc...but a dream...[/quote]That's a great post.
brownpaper said:
The music industry is out of touch. All the sueing of college students and senior citizens only makes them more hateable. There are a lot of underground music on the internet and that is something that the music industry does not understand. They are to used to that cookie-cutter album profit formula that they are falling behind the times. Perhaps, they are too late and are struggling to recover their perceived monopoly on music.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.