People who illegally download music spend more on official releases than anyone else, according to a new survey. The study, published today by think-tank Demos, found those who admit to file sharing spent an average £77 a year on singles and albums – £33 more than those who claim never to have wrongly accessed music for free.
Researcher Peter Bradwell said the findings should force companies and politicians to ‘wake up to the changing nature’ of the music industry as the Government plans to disconnect illegal downloaders from the internet in a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule.
An estimated seven million UK users download files illegally every year, which will cost the industry £200million in 2009, according to trade association, the British
Phonographic Industry. Artists Lily Allen and James Blunt recently voiced support for the Government plans, while Latin pop star Shakira claims illegal file sharing brings her closer to her fans.
‘Politicians and music companies need to wake up to the changing nature of music consumption and embrace the demand for new business models that offer lower prices and easier access to music.’
A 1,008 people aged between 18 and 50 were quizzed last month for the survey.
Full article at the Mail
Note: We are simply pulling focus on this issue – this doesn’t necessarily represent our point of view. Let us know your thoughts.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by derrenbrown: Blog Post: Downloaders Spend MORE On Music Than Those Who Obey The Law http://cli.gs/6J9E6...
I buy most of my music now, but I still sometimes ‘preview’ stuff via file-sharing. If it’s good, i’ll buy the album; if it’s not, I wont. If records sales slump, it’s because people don’t feel the music is worth the 89p
When I had records & casettes, I would copy those for friends….noone threatened to come round and smash up my ghetto blaster! The technology may have changed, but the principle is the same.
Somehow the logic of this research seems twisted :S
- in what way Jon? – Phillis
i download, i check what i like, i find new kinds of music, i decide, i buy. = i buy what i want to keep, not what’s just interesting now.
“- in what way Jon? – Phillis”
In that it gets correlation and causation mixed up leading to conclusions that aren’t supported by it’s data.
The study doesn’t show that people who download go on to buy more CDs because of that. It shows that those who buy more CD’s pirate more – but that is to be expected. People who buy CDs more will be bigger music consumers, and thus if they pirate to the exact same percentage as everyone else then they pirate more material. It also doesn’t show if those people might have bought *even more* if they hadn’t been able to pirate as much – and without that data any conclusion is lacking.
- good point – but isn’t the article highlighting the fact that the current / future policy on illegal downloading is out of touch with consumer behaviour (3 strikes). The “piracy is killing music” chant is blamed for huge drops in sales but the numbers don’t seem to add up when analysed. – see http://mashable.com/2008/06/20/cd-sales-fall-faster-than-digital-music-sales-rise-or-do-they/ – Phillis
I download alot of music, and although I don’t regularly buy CDs and albums, if I find an artist I like I’ll go out of my way to buy merchandise and go to see them live, alot of artists get more money from gig tickets and merch anyway…
Alot of bands have realised that letting the fans download or at least hear the music via a stream on MySpace or something is the best way to do it, it doesn’t force them to download it illegally, but they still get to listen to it whenever they want, then people get a feel for the album and either buy it or see them live and buy sweet merch, like I do.
It’s the way the industry should be.
I habitually download music; I see it no differently now than I did as a youngster, buying an LP or Cassete which four friends would then copy and (hopefully) reciprocate. That way all five of us had five albums on our preferred format. The only difference is that now I do it remotely and electronically (far much less fun than the gatherings and lively musical discourse we enjoyed as kids, but equally illegal). I should also confess that now, as then, I habitually lie about how much music I actually go out and purchase, to avoid looking like a thieving twat. Love you all.
Well the government doing this “three strikes” thing isn’t stopping the problem it’s just picking out people that do illegally download one by one which isn’t going to stop it, at the end of the day this just proves that the music industry is more about the money that it is the music because there aren’t any artists suffering from illegal downloading
This study does not in any way show that downloading is causing people to spend more on music. Correlation is not causation!!
It makes sense that music downloaders spend more on music because almost everyone who likes music downloads music and are more likley to buy albums as well. Where as people who dont download music probably dont like music enough to spend much money on it.
Im studying music industry on my uni course and i can tell you now that the introduction of illigal downloading has fucked the industry up good and propper. And my evidence for all this is that record sales have massivley gone down since downloading has begun.
correlation/causation is really the relevant point,. Whether it is simply that illegal downloaders love music more and listen to more music than most peope doesn’t matter. The fact is they spend more on music than people who don’t download illegally, and therefore their downloading isn’t hurting the music business at all.
Respected artists like Radiohead – who I might add I would never consider ripping off- support consumers’ rights to download.
Good luck holding back the tide King Cnut, but I daresay it’s a tidal wave already in motion, which will sweep small talents like Lily Allen and Blunt up with all the other detritus in its way.
‘Downloaders’ is too broad a definition. These results are specific to music. File-sharing content comes in many forms: Books, Games, Movies, Software, TV… No mention was made to these other categories.
‘cost the MAFIA £200million in 2009′
Interesting re-frame: File-Sharing SAVED the UK consumer £200million.
The feeling I get from the article is they are trying to create a ‘wedge issue’ of the month: create 2 opposing sides and let the pointless and bitter arguing commence, distracting people from more important issues like why we should allow greedy, lying bastards to make important decisions that control our lives in the first place.
“An estimated seven million UK users download files illegally every year, which will cost the industry £200million in 2009, according to trade association”
I’m highly suspicious of figures like this. The last time the record industry released a figure of lost sales through digital copying, it turned out they were averaging some absurdly high figure like $25 per download. Essentially, they had just made the sum up, so I’m not going to believe anything like this until I see some sources.
It’s amazing to finally see some official recognition of this. I’m a DJ and producer and (legally) haven’t haven’t paid for a song in over 4 years.
The more a song is heard, the more the album it came from will sell. Common sense, right?
With massive marketing plans to the side for a second, an albums material is the biggest form of promo for any release. Labels have known this for decades. Based on that, radio and club DJ’s are given free access to new music via promo websites and CD’s, with the idea being that they will immediately start playing the songs to their audiences.
It’s a very similar situation with your average downloader
I’d be curious to know how much of the music / video downloaded illegally is because it has not been released (either “yet” or “ever”) in a user’s region – a practice from which one can only assume that the company doesn’t want people’s money. It’s hard to see how that equates to a loss except for specialist importers of music who might otherwise charge £60+ for a CD not available in this region. And films: how many of the illegal downloads are for films that are being held back from distribution in a particular region. Why does that practice even happen any more?
++ TBC ++
++ Cont ++
Then this needs to compare to the amount of music / film that is freely available in a region but is downloaded illegally anyway.
My suspicion is that the creation of artificial scarcity by the distributors is being addressed by the internet since it now can be. Historically there may be great arguments for that phased distribution (licensing agreements / legal / distribution / I don’t actually know – it’s not my business) but are those still relevant?
++ Cont ++
Gaah! – website ate my first part of this polemic rant. I’ll try again:
I wonder how much of this illegal downloading is due to people engaged in getting hold of media that isn’t available in their region (either “yet” or “ever”)? It’s hard to classify that as a loss of revenue when it would be impossible to get that money to the record or film company no matter how hard one tried. The only losers would be specialist importers who might charge in excess of £60 for a CD in some cases – now THAT’S piracy (or is it extortion? – arguments about free will can be inserted here
) And why is there still a schedule for film releases?
++ Cont ++
There is a sniff of Freakonomics about this situation to my mind (where easy obvious answers are applied to a situation that is notably more complex) and, in any case, ruthless enforcement of the old status quo has never worked out historically. I don’t think the “knee-jerk” reactions of the existing music industry are going to fix this and the Government’s attitude that this is worth spending yet more taxpayer’s money on is not helpful or desirable. Solutions like Spotify will probably turn out to be the answer but the required investment in communications infrastructure is simply not being made in this country.
++Cont++
++ Cont ++
Oh and Phazer’s argument about CD pirates being music lovers is probably true – certainly plausible – but the question is this: do you, as a record company executive, want to demonise your best customers? I’d say “no” but I’m just a simple soul, trying to get by in a complex world.
Also you need larger comment boxes
Also – looks like part 1 got eaten again. Q: How much downloaded media is not available in that geographical region either “yet” or “ever”. That’s only lost revenue for specialist importers who can charge >£60 for a CD (which I call extortion TBH). Films are the example I’m thinking of here really.
Very true. When I was a kid we used to tape songs off the radio and pass the tape around friends, who would all make their own copy. There is little difference in my opinion.
I sometimes download songs illegally but if I like the music I buy it on iTunes, on which I spend a fortune (much more than I used to spend on CDs or records back in the day – it’s just so easy to click a button)
It could simply be because people who download illegally, also are just more interested in music, and overally spend a larger proportion of their income towards it, and also vice versa.
Im tempted to blatantly apply the bradford hill criteria out of context and say there is no causal relationship.
Correlation does not prove causation, BUT this correlation is contrary to what the music industry would like you to believe. In this light, it really does appear that the music industry is overeager to bite the hand that feeds it.
with many musicians springing up left, right and center; it’s difficult now a days to see what is worth getting into. This being said smaller artists that I have spoken to don’t mind if their tracks are heard across the internet as it is a way of people doing the promotion for them. With DRM being bundled in with a lot of online music for download, public opinion and favor with any legislation that gets passed through will be low and unwelcome. The existing copyright laws that govern this format of media are based on antiquanted ideologies that are not fit for purpose today, as they dont accommodate for portable players and barely cover internet usage. If any shakeup of this practice is to be put into place, ultimately the record industry should speak to end users as opposed to striking deals with government and internet service providers.
I very much doubt that artists and the big guys at the top of the record industry are really doing as badly as their making out, maybe they’re taking a bit of a fall in the huge amount of profits they were previously making, but I’m pretty sure no one is out starving on the street because of illegal downloading. And maybe this sounds pretentious and judgemental but surely if record company owners and huge artists are able to become rich beyond belief from music sales, compared to a doctor living off a relatively regular salary then why is levelling out the difference slightly such a terrible thing?
Somehow, I don’t think companies or politicians will listen to this…
I’m not certain consumer behaviour should be the guiding principle for law; the opposite seems more appropriate. Notwithstanding the point about the potential for skewed conclusions about causation It seems to me that, even for those assuming causation, there is an implied proposition here, although I’m struggling to distill it precidely. I think it’s something like: “Illegal activity can be justifed if it leads to eventual benefit for the victim”. I would argue against that motion. However, if I was the record industry I *would* be allowing people free access to samples of music in the hope that they would go on to buy the whole album.
i buy vinyl from charity shops. They’ll never catch me!
This also just in: Research relying on honest answers from people being questioned about illegal things, unlikely to yield valid results.
Additionally the assertion that downloaded music ‘costs’ the industry anything is farcical. Someone obtaining an item free != lost sales. I agree with the poster above, this ‘study’ wreaks of flawed.
The people will speak with their wallets and their actions. The number of people who use illegal filesharing as a means to aquire content grows exponentially and the Government, the RIAA and the MPAA need to change their copyright protection models. The current model based on scarcity is clearly obsolete as content is now in abundance. Long live filesharing and Long live freedom of content!
Im from the Czech Republic and CDs and DVDs are so expensive here. I wont put the prices in pounds as it is irrelevant. I’ll put it in contrast with my salary. I have to work cca 12hours to buy one CD and cca 16hours to buy a DVD. The thing is, if I had to work just one hour to earn the amount of money to buy a cd i certainly would do so. But now its easier just to click, wait 10s and get the album. But the artists should also consider that even if i download their album /illegaly/, I am listening to their stuff and if I like it I’ll buy their album next time.
At times I wonder whether people didn’t spend just as much before as now including the downloading.
Copies have been made all the time already. Not this massive already ofcourse.
As long as it is there ..
Lots prefer to buy them, dont want to see to this constant dowloading anymore nowadays. They get a subscription or such.
The truth is much of the music people download they would never buy to begin with, so is the music industry really losing money or do they just need something to complain about because most of the execs dont know the difference between a mouse and a keyboard?
I used to download a LOT of music but I don’t bother anymore. I tended to download a few tracks and if I liked them I bought the album. If I didn’t like them I didn’t buy. I wouldn’t have bought the album before hearing a few tracks so the record companies weren’t losing any money through me doing this. If anything getting my hands on the illegal stuff got them a sale
I wonder how many people illegally downloaded, say, The Events, and then went out and purchased Tricks of the Mind from Waterstones… I’d reckon a fair few.
(Then again, why illegally download The Events when it’s on Channel 4′s website legally and free…)
People who spend more on music are bigger music fans & more likely to have downloaded in the past, why does survey assume the other way round?
I downloaded music (1998 – Napster) at Uni and listened to a wider variety of things because of it. And as I couldn’t take it off the Uni computers as mp3 players were rare I bought a good few albums.
Now with Spotify and iTunes you can try what you want a bit of, and buy what you want to take with you – the illegal route is harder! On lower incomes/ children it is more attractive though. Allow more price competition for old tracks and payment styles for this.
TV Downloads is current battle.
I rarely ever buy/download music. I mostly use free music players online to satisfy my need. But that may just be because I don’t get out much….
@Phillis Being “in touch” with criminal behaviour is a good thing? Drink driving was far more prevalent amongst the population during the 70s than file sharing is today, but was nearly elimininated by strong enforcement. I’m afraid any suggestion that filesharing is “too popular” to be nigh eliminated is simply wrong. The actual level of punishment is nearly irrelevant – but lower the odds of being caught from one in a million to one in fifty and file sharing goes away.
And that article really is laughable – it assumes a ludicrously high projected growth for digital sales that are already beginning to tail off since that article was written.
“which will cost the industry £200million”
I believe statements such as this to be invalid as, with no other means than paying for the media, a large proportion of the downloaders would just not purchase the media at all. It cannot be said that money is being lost from sales that wouldn’t happen.
I see ‘illegally downloading’ music as a portal for artists to spread their message to larger amounts of people, compared to sales-alone.