It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does a Free Download Equal a Lost Sale?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:12 PM
Does a Free Download Equal a Lost Sale?

As more economists study the economics of downloading music freely, the consensus will likely be that it does hurt sales of music, but how much? Can this impact greatly on us?

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:31 PM
This is the BS lie being used to justify the current 'theft' arguement.

The fact is that if I had to go out and pay for for the down-loaded music I have I wouldn't bother with it at all.

There would never have been a sale to lose in the first place.

The reason the music industry is in the state it is in is because of the 'bands' and 'music' they currently promote. It has nothing to do with fact downloading promotes sales if you ask me.

I have bought the 'official' on at least one occassion and I know others have done the same, similarly with movies.
I like many people I know have downloaded movies and bought the DVD (for the extra stuff) when it has come out.

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:44 PM
It is still theft. You have taken something that you do not own and have no permission to use. Whether they lost a sale is moot. When you donload copyrighted material you are stealing.

I don't download and I certainly don't support the RIAA by purchasing thier crappy music.

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:01 PM
Is it stealing-yes.

Does it really kill sales-not really

If you like something-you are more likly to go and buy the cd.

I downloaded a trial of game Far Cry-I loved it so much I went and purchased the game.

who really suffers-hmmm-millionare bands-really feel for them or billionare produces-really, really feel for them

It is wrong, but is it any different than borrowing your friends cd and coping it?

This is also considered illegal, btw.

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:21 PM
I look at it this way.. I can download movies and I can download music. I could do this and buy neither. But what happens? I buy DVDs. I buy alot of them. I don't waste my time with music. Why? Because it isn't any good. There is no value. I wouldn't buy the crap they put out regardless if I were able to download music or not. I buy movies because I like having the DVDs to watch on my tv. I get value. I get a good product with special features. And the craziest thing is that the DVD is about the same price as the CD with one or two good songs.

The RIAA needs to pull their heads out and quit trying to blame everyone else for their poor product.

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:27 PM
Myself being in the Music Biz, and an Avid lover of Music can see it both ways.

1. You have the Artist, which is given a lump sum of money to put towards the recording, this includes everything from Pics, Strings, Food, Lodging, Producer, Engineer, Yadda Yadda. Once the Final recording is mastered, and Artwork etc. is put together, it is shipped out to stores. Now if the company itself is not a distributor, you have to pay someone to distribute it for BMG. Even though the CD may sell for $12-$19 a pop. The artist only sees about 1% of the sale, and that only comes AFTER you pay back the Advance for the Album, and any other $$ Advances that were given upon signing your contract. So even if the album goes Platinum (1 Million Sales) @ $17.00 a CD = $17 million, the Artist will probably only see around $170,000, and that gets split between the group/Artist. So out of this 1 member out of a four piece act will only see $42,500. Most groups do not usually see a Platinum Album untill after a year, and in some cases only after the second album.

Now the way an Artist makes money, is through touring and Merchandising. But 9 times out of 10 they Have to Pay for it out of Pocket. So this $170,000 made off of a Platinum album, usually would go right into the touring. The less CD's that are bought, the less money they see over a very short period of time. Then they must get another advance from the Company for touring which will take longer for them to pay back. This is just based out of a simple contract. Now when it gets more in depth, such as Points on the record for the Producer and what not, they may see less, but that is a price to pay to get a top notch Producer.

2. As a fan, I always hated that singles are only available for about 2-3 Months, after that you are pretty much forced to buy the Album, even if you only want that one song. Then you have albums that are out of print and are nearly impossible to get. Everybody and their Mom has copied tapes and Cd's from their friends, so why should this be any different? Well instead of having about 20 people to get it from, you know have Millions. Their are some groups were I only like one song, this is where P2P comes in handy.

In my opinion, the Companies should not be bitchin because they see the most money from the sales, and also have those stocks pushing more money in their Pockets. I think the big thing is the fact that the Economy has sucked for awhile now and no one wants to go out and spend money, especially someone like me who needs to put that $20 into my daughters Future. Had I been making more money, and my place of Business not taking a hit which lead to reduction in Hours and Pay, I might be able to afford to Pay for it.

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:07 PM
Here is my experience with free downloads:

I find a song I wanna check out. I download it for free, steal it to some. If I like the song and band I have been known to go buy the CD, but more importantly, I go buy a ticket to their concert($30-$50) when they come through town and buy a shirt($20) and prob 3-4 beers($20). So for that one free download I stole, I spent $100 to see them live including parking. So you tell me, does it really hurt the sales? I think music should be free, the bands should make their money off their show and tour. If you put on a good show, you make good money.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:06 AM
.....and then there is the not-so-small matter of replacing my vinyl LP's by downloading music I have already legally purchased so I can make my own CD's.

The music business can, frankly, go to hell. They shafted themselves with the 'to formula' computerised garbage they chose to promote - cos it costs them next to nothing - in place of bands that actually can play.

....and look what they 'offer' in place of P2P etc.

We bear all the overheads of making the CD and they still think they have the right to charge us a huge % for the 'priviledge' of being able to do this ourselves.

The trouble for them is it has gone to far. They killed themselves with their greed, it's just yet to work through properly yet.

When you get to the point where the only realistic way to actually halt the flood is to take millions (if not billions) to court you really ought to be twigging that it is over.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:48 AM
Downloading music should encourage the artist to do more live shows and bring the music back to the people where it rightfully belongs. Not plastic wrapped in music shop downtown or 'qued' in a download window.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:11 AM
I guess it depends on what you mean by "free download."

If you're talking about music that's been stolen using P2P file-sharing applications[1], then yeah, it probably does hurt sales a little bit. Not nearly as much as the RIAA would have you believe, but it's likely that at least some artists have felt a negative economic impact from theft using P2P.

If you're talking about other forms of free downloads: such as the free .mp3s several artists have made available on their websites, or endeavors such as the Baen Free Library, then there's a pretty strong case from both the publishers and artists/authors that having some of their works available for free download has actually helped push sales of their more current works.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:32 AM
yes music companies are losing money from the internet.

isnt that obvious?? people are getting it for free online.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:14 AM
What are you talking about, Recent studies have shown that there is virtually no drop in record sales, and in some cases there has been a rise in disc sales. People still buy CD's, and they always will, doesnt matter if you can get it for free on the internet. What about those who unfortunately are still using dial-up or don't have internet at all. Do they not listen to music either. The record companies are just having a pissy fit because people have found a way to listen to the music for free, even though they know that their cd's will still be purchased.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:49 AM
The main reason I've quit downloading music via P2P is that, generally, the quality of the downloaded files simply isn't good enough for me. Plus there are more & more "planted" files that are "looped" or otherwise rendered unuseable.

I still do it occasionally, but only to discover new artists and/or to check out a release prior to spending money on the CD. (Of course, you can also preview tracks on Amazon and other sites...) I don't feel bad about it, either; I must have spent tens of thousands on music over the years - some albums I bought as vinyl, sometimes replaced the vinyl, perhaps bought a pre-recorded cassette, then replaced them all with CDs.

I refuse to sign up for the "new & improved" Napster or any of the other Pay sites - there's little if anything available that I either want or don't already own. This is especially true if your tastes are more eclectic.

Agree with previous posters: the recording industry is losing money mainly because of poor quality/overpriced products.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Agree with previous posters: the recording industry is losing money mainly because of poor quality/overpriced products.

That's certainly true. There's some good stuff coming out, even in the much-derided pop market, but most of the music I've purchased in the last year has been from local shows. There's a lot more innovation going on there.

The truly unfortunate thing is that the recording industry has so completely missed the opportunity that P2P sharing offers them. The ease and the fact that the music's available for free, should mean that they can introduce a wider audience to some of their lesser-known artists. Napster, with its centralization, should have been the perfect venue for this, and had they handled it right 4 years ago, they could have (nearly) seamlessly moved from "music-free-for-all" to "free" and "purchasable" sections.

Oh well, we'll get there eventually.

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:25 PM
If I understand your question correctly then of course it will cause a reduction in sales of music CD's. The more people that download music rather than go to a store a purchase one offset sales to some degree.

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
The main reason I've quit downloading music via P2P is that, generally, the quality of the downloaded files simply isn't good enough for me. Plus there are more & more "planted" files that are "looped" or otherwise rendered unuseable.

You're using the wrong P2P programs then. Download Shareaza and you'll see a difference. I have yet to see a single "planted" file from there as opposed to Kazaa which is connected to an entirely different P2P network.

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:52 PM
People are allowed to copy music off the radio, CD, and tapes, for their own personal use. Those people can even share with their friends. However, they cannot abritrarily copy something they do not have, and they cannot put those songs on any medium for mass distribution, whether intentional or otherwise.

I remember when tape cassettes first came out. The music industry was mortified because they thought people would copy music from the radio onto tape cassettes and thus not buy music. However, it proved to not be the case as the music industry has made massive profit gains in the past 20 years. The same fear arose with the advent of the VCR. And you are seeing that fear with mp3s. People will still pay for high-quality music that is only derived from the music companies.

When the day comes that a medium is developed in which the freely-distributed music is the same quality as that sold in stores, then the music industry really needs to get on the offensive to protect their intellectual property rights.

That said, look at the attitude of a band such as the Grateful Dead. Not only did they encourage their fans to record their live concerts, they even set up a staging area where they could set up their recording equipment. Yet, the band remained one of the top-grossing bands in the U.S., raking in an annual gross of $50 million to $60 million.

So it goes to show you that perhaps one can make music and make money making music while having a free spirit to share music with their fans.

new topics

top topics


log in