

Music industry makes more each year - etz
http://grabstats.com/statcategorymain.asp?StatCatID=9

======
tomp
Anytime I see this kinds of numbers, the first thing I think about is - What
about inflation?

Sadly, without proper information about what these numbers represent, and
without accounting for inflation, there is no easy way to compare them.

~~~
aw3c2
I am sad to see you downvoted because you are right. Wikipedia says 1.4% for
2010 in the USA
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_rate)

I'd call quite significant and an important factor if you compare money over
time.

~~~
talmand
I'm not sure, but is there anything to the fact that the people buying music
experienced the same inflation?

------
tedsuo
The important point (for me) is not how much money is being lost due to
piracy, but whether the internet as it stands is destroying the music
industry. Clearly it is not. The music industry, on the other hand, is
currently bent on destroying the internet.

~~~
Fliko
I think it is important to be wary of who piracy actually hurts though. I very
strongly believe that piracy does hurt someone in the music industry, not the
artist, but rather the major record labels.

I remember seeing stats 4 years ago that the income of a musician is actually
going up pretty drastically because musicians are starting to go independent
(book their own shows, record and release their own records, get their own
shirts made to sell).

It takes a lot more work, and a lot of musicians just want to be in the music
industry for the music, but they have to (and are starting to) accept that
taking part in the business side of the industry will help put more food on
their plates and give them nice places to live.

The major record labels will probably stay around for a long time thanks to
highly commercial pop/rap artists, but it currently looks like they are
attacking everything around them in a desperate attempt to keep all these
artists going independent, and to keep the (relatively small) amount of
revenue lost from piracy.

It is absolutely nuts that musicians used to get 5 cents for a record sale,
and it is an absolute blessing that independent artists are getting most of
the money from their record sales!

For purposes of what I posted I think it's good to consider artists who sell
music via Topspin, Tunecore etc. as independent artists.

------
jgeralnik
The clear implication being that there is really no loss from piracy. While
this point could be argued, these numbers show nothing. First off, we don't
know how much money would have been made had there been no piracy - that is,
the music industry might have made even more money every year. The other issue
is that while the music industry's worldwide revenues have increased, recorded
music revenues have actually decreased, with North American revenues falling
from $13 billion in 2007 to $12.6 billion in 2010, and worldwide revenues
falling from $35.4 billion in 2009 to $35.1 billion in 2010. Of course, by
that same note it can't simply be claimed that the loss is because of piracy.
It may be that people are simply buying less music.

~~~
jcampbell1
These stats don't start until 2006, which after the Napster revolution killed
the CD store. I don't think these stats are useful for making any argument
about the impact of piracy.

~~~
talmand
Exactly, piracy is the boogeyman they use to excuse any hit in their revenues.
Since a downloaded song does not automatically equate to a lost sale there's
no way to know how much of an impact it had. Plus the industry often ignores
the long tail potential of a downloaded song, i.e., the person downloading the
song likes the band they just found and goes to a show or buys merchandise. Of
course, in that scenario the artist directly benefits and not the corporate
members of the RIAA.

I would like to equate a dip in revenue to the bad PR the industry has gotten
over the years by suing grandmothers for downloading songs, requiring
purchasing songs multiple times because of multiple devices, making it
difficult/illegal to copy purchased songs from one media to another, bribing
politicians to create laws to their advantage over the consumer, so on so on.
But I have no way to prove much like there's no way to prove piracy is killing
their industry.

I'm willing to bet a dip in revenues could be attributed to the fact that we
can legally stream music all we want either free or a small subscription fee
through services such as Pandora or Spotify. I for one haven't felt the need
to purchase music in years and I don't obtain music illegally.

Based on these kinds of reports though, the industry just seems to be doing
fine to me. A dip in revenues from 13 billion to 12.6 billion is not a
disaster. It's a statistical blip.

------
etz
to me the numbers show that album sales are down because of an unbelievable
change in the way that people buy music today as compared to 15 years ago.
Buying a single song has replaced buying an album. The RIAA is claiming that
album sales are down like 90 percent. DUH... but that's not due to piracy,
it's due to itunes raking in 9 billion dollars for the music industry. If the
itunes downloads were the 10 dollars or more that an album costs..... well you
can do the math. So downloading may be killing the record labels, but it's the
LEGITIMATE downloading of songs.

If you think about it, apple takes HALF of the price of a download, so that's
18 BILLION downloads last year alone.

------
pagekalisedown
I wonder if WP7 is going to help Microsoft in regards to this..

"US MP3 Player Retail Sales, by Brand, February 2007 (% market share)

Apple (73.7%), San Disk (9%), Creative (3.3%), Microsoft (2.3%), Samsung
(2.2%), Other (9.5%)"

