If free downloads of media hurt sales...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-24 04:34pm

Then why, I wonder, is the 9/11 Commission Report #1 at amazon.com?

link

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-24 05:38pm

Because it's sold as a book in book stores as well as being available for download online.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-24 05:49pm

Axis Kast wrote:Because it's sold as a book in book stores as well as being available for download online.

That's his point, Axis. The US is being bombarded with the message that 'Downloading material means people won't buy it and the makers suffer!' by the media conglomerates. Yet here's something availiable in both forms, doing well.

If the lies shoved down the collective throats of America and wherever else the RIAA and MPAA can get a toehold were true, this book wouldn't sell a copy as it's offered freely. Yet it's a bestseller.

In short, he's openly mocking the media companies and the politicians who obey their commands.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-24 06:23pm

The obvious response is that it only hurts for music and movies. And then only certain types of music and movies. And then...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-07-24 07:48pm

I've never been one to go for best seller things. There are many well documented reports on the publishers buying out certain numbers of copies of books or CDs or what have you at select stores that will influence their "best seller" status. As soon as it becomes such a prestigious title holder, it sells itself hence why pop music is about image and not the shit music behind it. I care for if it's good, not how fashionable it'll make me with the ignorant masses.

My minor rant over with, I do see this as a nice bullet to the overpowering body that is the RIAA/MPAA organisation of evil in the US. Though I hear e-books are hard to sell or even give away because there's simply no substitute for a good paper book no matter what Star Trek or what have you predicts. So many will buy the book rather than sit infront of a PC screen or fork out for a PDA etc.

I do believe that it is an oft perpetuated media lie that downloads hinder sales though.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-24 07:51pm

I don't doubt that downloads of music hinder sales. I just hate the fact that the RIAA seems to think it doesn't have to change the way it does business even though people don't want to buy their overpriced products anymore and has taken a "fuck you" approach to anyone who doesn't agree.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-07-24 10:37pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:My minor rant over with, I do see this as a nice bullet to the overpowering body that is the RIAA/MPAA organisation of evil in the US. Though I hear e-books are hard to sell or even give away because there's simply no substitute for a good paper book no matter what Star Trek or what have you predicts. So many will buy the book rather than sit infront of a PC screen or fork out for a PDA etc.

Witness the Baen Free Library. It has a good number of e-books, for free, and it seems to have only helped sales, or at the very least not affected them. For example, I read enough of 1633 (it's a book) on there to know that I want it---but e-books suck. Solution: paper, and forking over the money. It's good to see that there are publishers who aren't hellbent on establishing control over their customers, and who are doing well.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-24 11:26pm

Actually, I don't think downloading music hurts sales more than that other RIAA bogeyman from the 70s and 80s: HOME TAPING! .

Smart music execs realize that it's a way of getting music to the masses without running the gauntlet of radio play/pay -lists. If being able to listen to music without paying for it is such a financial bloodletting for musicians, why do they allow their music to be played on the radio, where it can also be copied?

Movies aren't that much different. Sure people can watch movies on DVD at home and not pay 5 bucks for popcorn and so on... but people go to the movies as an excuse to get out of the house. It's like saying that if people are able to cook at home, restaurants will go out of business. As long as there are people looking to go out for a cheap date, movie theatres will stay open.

The RIAA and MPAA are so full of shit that it's coming out of their ears.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-07-24 11:35pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I've never been one to go for best seller things. There are many well documented reports on the publishers buying out certain numbers of copies of books or CDs or what have you at select stores that will influence their "best seller" status. As soon as it becomes such a prestigious title holder, it sells itself hence why pop music is about image and not the shit music behind it. I care for if it's good, not how fashionable it'll make me with the ignorant masses.

You realize that you're suggesting that the government is buying mass copies via Amazon.com?

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2004-07-25 07:15am

sketerpot wrote:
Witness the Baen Free Library. It has a good number of e-books, for free, and it seems to have only helped sales, or at the very least not affected them. For example, I read enough of 1633 (it's a book) on there to know that I want it---but e-books suck. Solution: paper, and forking over the money. It's good to see that there are publishers who aren't hellbent on establishing control over their customers, and who are doing well.

Hell, yeah. I recently bought Path of the Fury (By David Weber, published by Baen), based on knowing how good an author he is, thanks to the BFL.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-07-25 02:26pm

sketerpot wrote: Witness the Baen Free Library. It has a good number of e-books, for free, and it seems to have only helped sales, or at the very least not affected them. For example, I read enough of 1633 (it's a book) on there to know that I want it---but e-books suck. Solution: paper, and forking over the money. It's good to see that there are publishers who aren't hellbent on establishing control over their customers, and who are doing well.

And I can testify that such an idea works. Having bought not one, but two of Keith Laumer's Bolo novels from Amazon.co.uk after reading the first 6 chapters of one of the books for free on my Cassiopeia palmtop. The idea works and I praise Baen for such foresight given their size (as well as cursing them for not telling me it was only the first six chapters and parting me with my lovely cash).

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
You realize that you're suggesting that the government is buying mass copies via Amazon.com?

Shh, I never said the idea was 100% sound.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-25 03:21pm

Joe wrote:I don't doubt that downloads of music hinder sales. I just hate the fact that the RIAA seems to think it doesn't have to change the way it does business even though people don't want to buy their overpriced products anymore and has taken a "fuck you" approach to anyone who doesn't agree.

Indeed, and the worst part of all is that most of the artists don't give a shit because they don't make dick on CD sales. The only ones that do care are (suprise, surprise) bands that either have been around long enough to renegotiate an unfair contract (Metallica for example) or bands that were popular enough to warrant a larger cut. The vast bulk of artists however are delighted at this whole file-sharing thing since it is basically free advertising for what they really make money on (touring).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-25 03:32pm

I've bought albums based on songs I've downloaded from the Internet. That's 15 bucks they wouldn't have gotten had I not downloaded at all.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-25 03:52pm

I can say with absolute certainty I would have spent maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of what I actually spent last year on DVDs if it wasn't for downloading free media.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-07-26 02:30am

sketerpot wrote:Witness the Baen Free Library. It has a good number of e-books, for free, and it seems to have only helped sales, or at the very least not affected them. For example, I read enough of 1633 (it's a book) on there to know that I want it---but e-books suck. Solution: paper, and forking over the money. It's good to see that there are publishers who aren't hellbent on establishing control over their customers, and who are doing well.

Bean has an anthology line (based on the 1633 universe) purely funded by the ebook sales with profesional editors and paying the writers amature wages. That type of things would have been completely unprofitable todo via normal publishing.

linky

After all, Dave Weber's On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a "loss leader" for Baen's for-pay experiment "Webscriptions" for months now. And — hey, whaddaya know? — over that time it's become Baen's most popular backlist title in paper!

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-07-26 02:41am

Gil Hamilton wrote:I've bought albums based on songs I've downloaded from the Internet. That's 15 bucks they wouldn't have gotten had I not downloaded at all.

Amen to that!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-26 07:27am

sketerpot wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:My minor rant over with, I do see this as a nice bullet to the overpowering body that is the RIAA/MPAA organisation of evil in the US. Though I hear e-books are hard to sell or even give away because there's simply no substitute for a good paper book no matter what Star Trek or what have you predicts. So many will buy the book rather than sit infront of a PC screen or fork out for a PDA etc.
Witness the Baen Free Library. It has a good number of e-books, for free, and it seems to have only helped sales, or at the very least not affected them. For example, I read enough of 1633 (it's a book) on there to know that I want it---but e-books suck. Solution: paper, and forking over the money. It's good to see that there are publishers who aren't hellbent on establishing control over their customers, and who are doing well.

Witness that the Dead and Alanis Morrisette used to have their own download sites, and did rather well using it for publicity purposes.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-26 07:36am

The Kernel wrote:
Joe wrote:I don't doubt that downloads of music hinder sales. I just hate the fact that the RIAA seems to think it doesn't have to change the way it does business even though people don't want to buy their overpriced products anymore and has taken a "fuck you" approach to anyone who doesn't agree.
Indeed, and the worst part of all is that most of the artists don't give a shit because they don't make dick on CD sales. The only ones that do care are (suprise, surprise) bands that either have been around long enough to renegotiate an unfair contract (Metallica for example) or bands that were popular enough to warrant a larger cut. The vast bulk of artists however are delighted at this whole file-sharing thing since it is basically free advertising for what they really make money on (touring).

Hence the RIAA and Ticketmaster sueing the Greatful Dead!

why?

because GDM sold thier tickets for less then TM, researved the right to assign "Bootleg Seating", published bootleg MP3's online, and still sold a comfortable number of CD's and made more on tour then any other band while Jerry was still alive...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-26 08:59am

the best part about file sharing is that it lets people sample the actual product without having to buy something they may or may not be satisfied with. the RIAA doesn't really seem to get that people are more likely to buy a product if they know they're going to enjoy it first rather than taking a chance with a CD that they might not be able to listen to samples of. (given stores only carry listenable CDs for a certain amount of time before taking them down)

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-07-26 09:23am

in all honestly there is no hard proof that people being ably to download music has hurt music sales that much. What the RIAA dosent down you is the music sales is still up from 15 years ago. now sales of music to the age group of 18 to 24 have been dropping but they have been dropping since before napster even came out.
What is going on is that the music industry is trying to blame someone for poor music sales instead of relizing that the poor music sales could be a result of over price and poor quality cds.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-26 09:42am

Darth_Zod wrote:the best part about file sharing is that it lets people sample the actual product without having to buy something they may or may not be satisfied with. the RIAA doesn't really seem to get that people are more likely to buy a product if they know they're going to enjoy it first rather than taking a chance with a CD that they might not be able to listen to samples of. (given stores only carry listenable CDs for a certain amount of time before taking them down)

yeah another one bit that the music industry could learn from the gaming industry...

FREE DEMO DISKS

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-26 09:43am

m112880 wrote:in all honestly there is no hard proof that people being ably to download music has hurt music sales that much. What the RIAA dosent down you is the music sales is still up from 15 years ago. now sales of music to the age group of 18 to 24 have been dropping but they have been dropping since before napster even came out.
What is going on is that the music industry is trying to blame someone for poor music sales instead of relizing that the poor music sales could be a result of over price and poor quality cds.

not to mention demo's sell software.