

Another take on the RIAA sob-story - wlll
http://blog.ramenmusic.com/post/3371838017/the-recording-industry-sob-story

======
MichaelGG
A point of clarification: The recording industry is not the music industry,
it's just one part of it.

------
CurrentB
I for one eagerly await the music-less dystopia that awaits us following the
collapse of the RIAA

------
seertaak
This article is, sadly, typical of the anti-RIAA brigade. The modus operandi
is essentially to portray small, irrelevant details ("tut, tut, no adjustment
for inflation!") or imprecise or non-legalistic terminology ("It's not theft,
it's copyright infringement!") as evidence variously of a sinister RIAA
conspiracy, or, as is the case here, simply of their utter stupidity. Next,
hands are waved, big claims are made, and untested and economically
implausible business models are bandied about with the abandon of someone who
doesn't have a dime invested in the enterprise (well, except for the 50
dollars or so they save themselves annually by torrenting the music they
want). This is usually accompanied by a healthy dollop of macho posturing:
"don't make me steal this!".

Now, I know that no good can possibly come of trying to refute these
"arguments", but... to paraphrase the hero in the film "Friday": it's
Saturday, and I ain't got sh$t to do! So:

1) "The numbers are not adjusted for inflation."

Adjusting for inflation actually makes the collapse in turnover more
pronounced, not less. Ditto adjusting for population or median income. Doh!
The fact that he doesn't see this in his own exquisitely crafted inflation-
adjusted graph is evidence, were it needed, that there is none so blind as he
who will not see.

2) "These are stats from the RIAA. America only."

I should start by saying that this "argument" is slightly less asinine than
the previous. It's important, though, to be clear about how this fact presents
a problem. If we're arguing that this graph is evidence of the death of the
music industry, then we probably should be looking at global sales (on the
other hand, the US is the largest and most important music market and thus is
significant in its own right). If we're, however, arguing (as most sensible,
informed observers are) that filesharing/etc has a deleterious effect on music
sales, then it is sufficient for the graph to display like-for-like data
(which it does). After all, the effects of piracy are going to be similar
irrespective of geographical location. If anything, one would expect more
piracy in e.g. emerging markets.

3) "The type of graph specifically masks and trivializes the growth of
digital, enhancing the sob story."

Right, so the author whinges in point 1 about data not being adjusted for
inflation. "We need correct absolute figures!" screamed the author. But now
that we're at point 3, the problem is now that the data is showing absolute
rather than rate of growth figures. "We need percentage growth figures!",
screams the author. This is just silly. He admits as much by conceding "Ok,
ok, that’s kind of cheating because pre-2004 there were virtually no digital
sales, but hey, the point is digital has been growing quickly". Sorry, but no,
the point is not that digital has been "growing quickly", the point is that
the music industry, as a result of the pirates' activities, have been
hemorrhaging cash. If digital is growing so quickly and everything is fine and
dandy save for a few greedy lawyers/execs/etc at the RIAA/choose your
bogeyman, then why is EMI so dead?

Here's another turkey:

"Here’s the actual situation, properly adjusted for inflation, and using a
normal line chart instead of a complicated stacked area chart."

So whereas a few sentences ago the author was whinging about the data not
being aggregated globally, he now wants the data _disaggregated_ on
distribution format. If the question is "does piracy negatively impact music?"
or "is the music industry in trouble as a result of piracy?" then cumulative
values are exactly what we need to look at, which means we have to look at
those pesky, "complicated" stacked area charts.

The only upshot to this fellows little "analysis" was that as a result of it,
the RIAA is $25 richer. Well done!

~~~
sudara
Howdy! Well, I'm happy to have spurred further thought, but I think you might
have misunderstood my point of view.

There are only 2 reasons I wrote this article:

1) The original chart is horrible. It's embarrassing that it was published by
reputable sources due to it's awkward and very skewed presentation of data.
The fact that figures weren't adjusted for inflation is not a "small,
irrelevant detail" but rather a fundamental requirement when graphing monetary
value over time.

Regarding the stacked vs. line chart: The stacked chart is "complicated"
because although the formats are broken down, it's actually very hard to get a
read on any individual format's numbers over time. A line chart is a more
simple (less sexy) way of showing the total over time AND the individual
formats over time.

2) I'm kind of fed up with the "sky is falling" sad face the RIAA puts on and
the overblown news stories dramatizing this fall. Come on, first digital
revenues in 2004? There's a very clear business reason the sky is falling.
It's simply embarrassing that after avoiding/fighting digital distribution for
years and years, the RIAA tries to rewrite history, explaining their losses on
lions, tigers, bears and pirates.

So, again, to be clear, the goal of the post was not to prove or disprove
anything, but to correct and clarify.

Regarding my relationship to this story: I have many dimes invested. I am a
musician and run a small business selling digital music by subscription (which
_encourages_ sharing) and which was profitable from the day of launch.

------
tzs
Comparing the uptake of CDs and digital downloads to cassettes is not really
valid.

Cassettes complimented vinyl, rather than replaced it. Even many who primarily
wanted portable music would purchase on vinyl and then tape themselves. That
gave much better quality than buying pre-recorded cassettes. It was pretty
common when I was in college for even the people who only had cassette players
to purchase their music on vinyl, and have someone with a turntable and tape
deck tape it for them.

CDs, on the other hand, were largely a replacement for vinyl, and now digital
downloads are replacing CDs.

------
hernan7
Anybody knows what the peak around 1977 means? Disco?

~~~
sudara
I was super curious about this!

After looking at the raw numbers, I was also very curious how exactly they
were aggregated and collected. Perhaps some of the "events" on the chart are
along the (more boring) lines of "Label XYZ joints the RIAA and starts
reporting." I'm not too up on my RIAA history though...

------
bonch
"Suing people who are giving you money...spending millions on propaganda
deeming sharing an illegal act."

How is someone who is pirating music giving the RIAA money? Isn't sharing
copyrighted materials in fact an illegal act?

I've long thought that a lot of the RIAA hatred stems from pirates looking for
a scapegoat to portray as the "real" bad guy so as to negate their own guilty
feelings. It's easier to rip artists off if you feel like you're ripping off
some evil, faceless corporation instead. It's silly that anyone was upset with
the RIAA over suing people who were pirating their copyrighted materials. They
were well within their rights to do so, and it's their job to protect the
rights of the content owners they represent.

Unfortunately, opinions like this one are often drowned out. Many people have
grown so accustomed to the free ride that they don't want it taken away, and
they don't want to be reminded that they are in fact ripping artists off. The
artists must always be kept out of the equation.

~~~
henrikschroder
> How is someone who is pirating music giving the RIAA money?

Because actual research shows that a lot (but certainly not all) of the people
who pirate music are also big consumers of music, i.e. they both download
illegaly _and_ buy music. The divide between freeloaders and honest consumers
that the RIAA portrays doesn't exist, it's a complex greyscale.

Other research has pretty much proven that piracy emerges when a large section
of the consumers don't agree with the pricing of goods on a market, and a
monopoly or other disruption causes the market not to self-correct. Now you
can fight a piracy market either with legislation and law enforcement, or you
can actually compete with it, provide better service and better pricing.

This is why iTunes is such an incredible hit, it corrected the market. DRM-
free music for 99 cents a song is a much better product than a DRM-laden album
for 15$, and for a lot of people this product is better than the pirated
product which means they became honest consumers again.

This is why Spotify and Last.FM are such incredible hits. Unlimited music, and
pay 15$ a month to remove the ads. This is an even better product than iTunes,
and has won over another huge part of the pirate consumers.

Where I live, kids these days do not have mp3 collections. Few of them knows
what an mp3 actually is, but almost all of them have iTunes or Spotify. They
don't understand why you would want to keep a file library on your computer,
they open a program, search for what they want to listen to, and get to do it
instantly.

And this is what piracy proponents have been arguing the entire time: The way
to beat piracy is to provide a better service, not to bludgeon people into
accepting your monopoly price with lawsuits and propaganda.

~~~
henrikschroder
Then look at Justin Bieber. He started out by posting videos of himself to
YouTube, and now that he's rich and famous, he _still_ gives away all of his
music for free. Everything is there, for anyone to look at and listen to, no
DRM bullshit, no cost, no "this video is not available in your area because
of..."

But he's swimming in money, by selling "The Justin Bieber Experience",
concerts, merchandise, acne ads, and now even a motion picture. And most of
that money simply doesn't exist in that RIAA graph of the article, because
it's not cd sales, it's simply not how he makes his money.

