Report: Despite Piracy, Music Is More Alive Than Ever Before

A new paper published by the American economist Joel Waldfogel shows that music piracy hasn’t hurt the creation of new music as the RIAA, IFPI and other industry representatives have often claimed. Instead, music has democratized in recent years with the balance of power shifting from the monopoly of the major music labels to smaller, independent ones. Music itself may be more alive than ever before.

Image is Loading....

In recent years many academics have researched the supposed link between Internet piracy and the revenues of the major music labels, with varying results. Some have concluded that there is no adverse impact of piracy on sales, others argue that there’s a moderate negative relation, but the overall consensus is that the losses as claimed by the industry itself are hugely exaggerated.

Another claim of the music industry, that piracy hinders the creation of new music, has now been debunked by Applied Economics Professor Joel Waldfogel of the University of Minnesota. In a recently published paper he shows that there is no evidence that piracy hurts creativity or slows down the supply of recorded music.

“The legal monopoly created by copyright is justified by its encouragement of the creation of new works, but there is little evidence on this relationship,” Waldfogel starts in his introduction of the paper catchily titled: “Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie?”.

“The supply of recorded music appears not to have fallen off much since Napster, and there is at least suggestive evidence that independent music labels, which operate with lower break even thresholds, are playing an increased role in bringing new works to market,” he later concludes.

Where some researchers focused heavily on finding out what the link between piracy and music industry revenues is, another major shift in the music industry in the past decade was left mostly ignored. Without going into detail on the data provided, we want to highlight some excellent points Waldfogel lays out in his paper.

The Democratization of Music

In the paper Waldfogel reiterates some of the points we’ve made here earlier, namely, that alongside the increase in file-sharing, the state of technology advanced at a rapid pace as well. With new and cheaper recording technologies, digital music outlets and social networks, many of the tasks that were previously fulfilled by the big labels could easily be taken over by independent labels, or even the artists themselves.

To a certain degree the big labels are slowly becoming obsolete. At the least, their monopoly is falling apart as their role can be taken over by independent labels that operate with a much smaller profit margin. Where the majors sometimes have to sell half a million albums to break even, independent labels can do the same by selling 25,000 or less, Waldfogel illistrates.

On a broader scale it’s not hard to see that new technologies and the Internet in particular are a huge game changer for the music industry.

Production, Promotion and Distribution

“Bringing music successfully to market has three component activities – creation, promotion, and distribution – and new technologies have changed each of these substantially,” Waldfogel writes in his paper, explaining how each of the three components changed drastically in recent history.

Since the Second World War the costs of producing music have decreased decade after decade, and this process accelerated in the post-Napster era. Nearly every garage band can now record an album with high quality sound with a limited budget. This was pretty much impossible a few years ago.

Similarly, thanks to the Internet there are a million ways to promote one’s content, with the only cost being the time that’s invested in it. Thanks to Youtube, Facebook and more specialized music services such as Last.fm and Pandora, artists have many platforms to promote themselves. Previously, although illegal, labels often paid radio stations to promote their music.

On the distribution side things have changed too. With a minimal investment artists can now put their work up for sale on iTunes, and those who wish to give it away for free have hundreds of options to do so as well. Now compare that to a decade ago, when the iPod had yet to be invented and artists had to physically ship their CDs all over the world.

The changes the music industry has gone through are unprecedented, but instead of adopting to the new reality the big labels have been focused almost exclusively on piracy. And yes, the revenues are down for the major labels, but thousands of smaller independent labels have been started during the same period, many of which are turning healthy profits.

In sum, Waldfogel’s paper concludes that, unlike the major labels often suggest, the supply of new music has not decreased because of piracy. Instead, the entire music industry has changed with more power going to the artists and smaller labels. Although this is hurting the majors, piracy is not to blame and music is more alive than ever before.

Read

Supreme Court Ruling Makes Chasing File-Sharers Hugely Expensive

A court ruling has not only sharply reduced the amount of compensation rightsholders can expect from Danish file-sharing cases, but has also drawn a line on evidential standards. To accurately claim their losses in future, rightsholders will have to gain physical access to an infringer’s computer. A leading lawyer in the field says the costs will prove prohibitively expensive.

In 2005, anti-piracy group Antipiratgruppen (APG) and the underlying music group IFPI tracked a man who they say was sharing 13,000 music tracks via a Direct Connect network. The case moved through the legal system and went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The 6 year-old case has now been concluded and although the rightsholder plaintiffs in the case won their battle – albeit in a much smaller way than anticipated – the Court’s ruling is set to prove a huge setback to their overall war.

The case against the now 57-year-old was brought by APG on behalf of many IFPI-linked record labels and artists. As is so often in these cases, they had hoped for a punishing outcome in order to deter others. The rightsholders had originally demanded 440,000 kroner ($83,400) in compensation but that claimed amount was ultimately reduced to 200,000 ($37,900).

However, yesterday the Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay only 10,000 kroner ($1,900), a major setback for the rightsholders who had hoped for a much higher precedent-setting amount on which to model future cases.

The compensation-limiting factor problem proved to be the reach of the evidence relied on by Antipiratgruppen. APG used techniques which scraped the index of the files said to be being made available by the defendant and then linked them back to his IP address, a method which has been acceptable in the past. But while the Court accepted that some sharing had occurred due to the defendant’s confession, it wasn’t satisfied that the index was an accurate representation of the files physically present on the defendant’s computer.

Per Overbeck, lawyer for the defendant, said that the lowered compensation award shows that it’s worth fighting back.

“The ruling demonstrates that it pays to be critical of Antipiratgruppen’s claims,” he said.

Speaking with Politiken, IFPI lawyer Johan Schlüter said that the Supreme Court decision to tighten the standard of proof in these cases could mean that Antipiratgruppen has to seize and investigate the defendant’s computer in any forthcoming cases, an expensive process that would require a bailiff, IT experts, and in some cases a locksmith.

“I will not directly say that we can not afford it, but it could be so expensive that it could mean we cannot pursue such matters,” said Schlüter. “We can not accept that we have become completely neutered, so we’ll now sit down with some IT people and think through what we can do to provide better documentation.”

Schlüter commented that the industry is in somewhat of a “cultural battle” with illegal copying and he could have a point. A recent moral standards study in Denmark found that a high percentage of the public found illicit downloading socially acceptable.

Read

US Music Piracy Plunges After LimeWire Shutdown

Today we have some good news for the major record labels. The renowned market research group NPD has found that close to half of all Americans who were pirating music via P2P applications a year ago, have reportedly stopped doing so. As a result the number of US music pirates decreased by 12 million. NPD attributes this unprecedented shift to the LimeWire shutdown, but we fear that it wont have any effect on record label revenues.

Image is Loading....There is no arguing that the file-sharing landscape changed for good when the RIAA managed to shut LimeWire down October last year. From one day to another, the most widely known file-sharing application ceased to exist.

At the time we doubted that LimeWire’s demise would have much of an impact on the volume of music piracy, but according to research from the NPD Group we were wrong.

Although there are plenty of alternatives to LimeWire, NPD found that the number of people who downloaded music illicitly using P2P in the last quarter of 2010 has decreased by 43% compared to the year before. The researchers conclude that much of the decline is due to the unavailability of LimeWire, which ceased its operations just a few weeks into quarter 4 of last year.

This data comes from an extensive survey of 5,549 Americans, and translated into the entire population it means that the number of music pirates has decreased from 28 million to 16 million in just a year.

Looking at the market share of the various P2P applications, LimeWire was still in the lead with 32 percent of the music pirates indicating that they’d used it in the few weeks that it was still available. This is down from 56 percent in the year before.

As expected, LimeWire’s shutdown also resulted in a market share up-tick for various other P2P applications. FrostWire appears to be the greatest beneficiary, as it saw a relative increase from 10 percent to 21 percent.

The most popular BitTorrent client uTorrent saw its market share growing from 8 to 12 percent. However, since the total number of music pirates declined so much this actually means that in absolute numbers less people indicated that they used uTorrent to pirate music compared to a year ago.

Taken together NPD’s research suggests that the percentage of music pirates in the U.S. population has fallen drastically, from 16 percent to 9 percent in a year. But the big question is what effect this has had on music industry revenues. Although we don’t necessarily have much faith in the validity of the survey, the RIAA must be delighted with the findings – or are they?

We assume that when they look at their revenues during the last quarter of 2010, the big music labels will fail to see any significant change in their revenues. Why? Well, because music piracy might not have much of an effect on music sales in the first place. But I guess if they can’t use it to their benefit, the RIAA will simply ignore what might be the biggest piracy decline in history.

Read