Nine Inch Nails front man Trent Reznor is selling most of his studio and live equipment on Ebay. The auction site currently lists around 20 guitars, and each item is accompanied by the following explanation:
"This is the equipment from the Nine Inch Nails touring Gear and studio rig that we are no longer in need of. (...) We will be listing hundreds of items over the next several weeks such as guitars, keyboards, amplifiers, drums, staging, anvil cases, cables, rack/outboard gear, guitar effects, pedal boards. So keep checking in on our auctions."
Some of the auctions already reached prices way over market value of the instruments, as noted by the Guardian. The paper explains:
"Nine Inch Nails have long enjoyed an interactive relationship with fans. Reznor has given away albums, leaked professionally shot live footage, and was for a long time one of music's most candid Twitterers. If Nine Inch Nails are no longer using some of their equipment, it seems they would rather see it in the hands of fans than gathering dust in a warehouse."
In fact, NIN has been embracing Bittorrent to distribute music and reach fans like no other band. Trent Reznor gave away multiple Creative Commons-licensed albums via torrent sites like The Pirate Bay. NIN also leaked a giant, 405 GB torrent with uncut HD footage, and the band even started up its own torrent tracker to fully utilize P2P.
In other words: NIN are Bittorrent's first rock stars, and these are the very guitars that rocked The Pirate Bay. Still need a present for the NIN-loving P2P enthusiast in your life? Then check out Reznor's auctions here.
"This is the equipment from the Nine Inch Nails touring Gear and studio rig that we are no longer in need of. (...) We will be listing hundreds of items over the next several weeks such as guitars, keyboards, amplifiers, drums, staging, anvil cases, cables, rack/outboard gear, guitar effects, pedal boards. So keep checking in on our auctions."
Some of the auctions already reached prices way over market value of the instruments, as noted by the Guardian. The paper explains:
"Nine Inch Nails have long enjoyed an interactive relationship with fans. Reznor has given away albums, leaked professionally shot live footage, and was for a long time one of music's most candid Twitterers. If Nine Inch Nails are no longer using some of their equipment, it seems they would rather see it in the hands of fans than gathering dust in a warehouse."
In fact, NIN has been embracing Bittorrent to distribute music and reach fans like no other band. Trent Reznor gave away multiple Creative Commons-licensed albums via torrent sites like The Pirate Bay. NIN also leaked a giant, 405 GB torrent with uncut HD footage, and the band even started up its own torrent tracker to fully utilize P2P.
In other words: NIN are Bittorrent's first rock stars, and these are the very guitars that rocked The Pirate Bay. Still need a present for the NIN-loving P2P enthusiast in your life? Then check out Reznor's auctions here.
Controversial one-click file hoster Rapidshare is apparently working on a music download site. The company recently hired former German TV personality Mola Abedisi as an executive consultant to "coordinate trade show participation and the new section RapidMusic," according to German business news website New-Business.de. Rapidshare also hopes that Abedisi will help them to establish new cooperations with the entertainment industry.
This isn't the first time Rapidshare has been toying with content partnerships. The file hoster launched a video game platform dubbed Rapidgames in 2007 that has been used to distribute video game demos trailers and patches. The company has been cooperating with a number of video game publishers on this platform, and it now seems to be ready to extend this idea to music as well.
Abedisi and Rapidshare COO Bobby Chang were also spotted at a music industry event in Berlin this week, where the company tried to reach out to rights holders. German file sharing news site Gulli.com reported however that Rapidshare's presence wasn't all that well received at the event. Germany's music industry has been fighting in court with Rapidshare multiple times over the last few years, but attempts to shut down the site or substantially change its business model have so far failed.
This isn't the first time Rapidshare has been toying with content partnerships. The file hoster launched a video game platform dubbed Rapidgames in 2007 that has been used to distribute video game demos trailers and patches. The company has been cooperating with a number of video game publishers on this platform, and it now seems to be ready to extend this idea to music as well.
Abedisi and Rapidshare COO Bobby Chang were also spotted at a music industry event in Berlin this week, where the company tried to reach out to rights holders. German file sharing news site Gulli.com reported however that Rapidshare's presence wasn't all that well received at the event. Germany's music industry has been fighting in court with Rapidshare multiple times over the last few years, but attempts to shut down the site or substantially change its business model have so far failed.
The UK-based Association of Independent Music is supporting an initiative that would disconnect repeat infringiers from the Internet, also known as three strikes and you're out, according to a report from Musicweek.com. The organization, which is made up of UK indie labels, submitted its position as part of the ongoing government consultation about P2P file sharing. Here's a short quote from the Musicweek article:
"We support provision for a range of sanctions which can be invoked proportionately including, with necessary safeguards, the suspension of individual broadband accounts as a last resort against the most persistent offenders."
The consultation has divided the UK's music industry, with many artists coming out on both sides of the debate. Lily Allen wants to punish file sharers, Radiohead believe P2P is just another way to promote your music. AIMs stance is not really that surprising. The organization has advocated for three strikes in the past, but it has also always shown an understanding for the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Back in 2006, AIM wrote (PDF):
"The average consumer will assume the right to copy what he/she wants from whatever format, to any format and to anyone. Copying and sharing is now an explicit part of modern cultural and social exchange."
Wait a minute, you might think: Why would you want to punish people for taking part in modern culture? Well, turns out, AIMs position is actually not that simple. The organization wants to legalize and monetize file sharing through licensing agreements with ISPs and others. Users would just have to pay a few bucks extra to their ISP for the right to share files without repercussion. That's the carrot, if you will. Three strikes would be the stick, according to a recent op-ed by AIM CEO Alison Wenham:
"Consumers opting for value added service would be free from any threat of disconnection. Those who didn’t, but who continued to copy and share music from pirated sites would be required to make a simple choice – pay for your content, or go somewhere else."
AIM now seems to believe that it needs the stick first in order to come up wth the carrots. It's an understandable position, even though it's not one I share. However, the tragedy of the current discussion is that everything once again gets reduced to sound bites, and you probably don't have to wait too long before someone will claim that UK's indie labels are "against file sharing."
"We support provision for a range of sanctions which can be invoked proportionately including, with necessary safeguards, the suspension of individual broadband accounts as a last resort against the most persistent offenders."
The consultation has divided the UK's music industry, with many artists coming out on both sides of the debate. Lily Allen wants to punish file sharers, Radiohead believe P2P is just another way to promote your music. AIMs stance is not really that surprising. The organization has advocated for three strikes in the past, but it has also always shown an understanding for the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Back in 2006, AIM wrote (PDF):
"The average consumer will assume the right to copy what he/she wants from whatever format, to any format and to anyone. Copying and sharing is now an explicit part of modern cultural and social exchange."
Wait a minute, you might think: Why would you want to punish people for taking part in modern culture? Well, turns out, AIMs position is actually not that simple. The organization wants to legalize and monetize file sharing through licensing agreements with ISPs and others. Users would just have to pay a few bucks extra to their ISP for the right to share files without repercussion. That's the carrot, if you will. Three strikes would be the stick, according to a recent op-ed by AIM CEO Alison Wenham:
"Consumers opting for value added service would be free from any threat of disconnection. Those who didn’t, but who continued to copy and share music from pirated sites would be required to make a simple choice – pay for your content, or go somewhere else."
AIM now seems to believe that it needs the stick first in order to come up wth the carrots. It's an understandable position, even though it's not one I share. However, the tragedy of the current discussion is that everything once again gets reduced to sound bites, and you probably don't have to wait too long before someone will claim that UK's indie labels are "against file sharing."
Veteran techno DJ and producer Ritchie Hawtin has just released a free OS X application that makes it possible for DJs to automatically post the exact names of all tracks played to their Twitter stream.
Twitter DJ works as a extension of Traktor, a popular DJ software solution that can be used to mix MP3 files with the help of traditional turn tables or other external devices. Hawtin has been an early champion of Traktor, and his Twitter DJ press release is full of praise about the application:
"Having already revolutionised the art of mixing, it could now be about to have a profound effect on the relationship between a DJ and their audience."
Twitter DJ checks every five seconds which tracks Traktor is currently playing. The app then takes the track names and posts them to Twitter, where users can receive them practically in real time (check out Hawtin's own Twitter stream to see how this might look like).
Imagine you're going to a club, the DJ plays a great track and your mobile phone receives the name of the track through a mobile Twitter application while it's still playing. You mark the tracks you like the best as favored tweets, and you can start researching the artists and downloading their music as soon as you're back home.
But wait, that's not all: Hawtin also wants to use the application to help small producers and indie artists get their fair share from performing rights organizations. Clubs have to pay organizations like ASCAP and BMI licensing fees for the public performance of their artists music.
The theory is that bands and DJs would fill out forms listing all the songs they played, but more often than not, this doesn't happen and ASCAP just receives the money without any further information. That money gets then divided up on the basis of existing data about public performances, much of which comes from Top 40 radio stations. Said Hawtin:
"By providing the necessary information to track what is really being played in clubs, the Twitter DJ application would not only drag the likes of GEMA, PRS and SOCAN kicking and screaming into the 21st century, but make sure the real artists get paid instead of performance payments simply being carved up between the Madonnas and U2s of the world. If record sales are slowing down and performance is now the key area where artists can achieve financial stability, better solutions need to be found and a workable structure put in place as soon as possible."
Twitter DJ works as a extension of Traktor, a popular DJ software solution that can be used to mix MP3 files with the help of traditional turn tables or other external devices. Hawtin has been an early champion of Traktor, and his Twitter DJ press release is full of praise about the application:
"Having already revolutionised the art of mixing, it could now be about to have a profound effect on the relationship between a DJ and their audience."
Twitter DJ checks every five seconds which tracks Traktor is currently playing. The app then takes the track names and posts them to Twitter, where users can receive them practically in real time (check out Hawtin's own Twitter stream to see how this might look like).
Imagine you're going to a club, the DJ plays a great track and your mobile phone receives the name of the track through a mobile Twitter application while it's still playing. You mark the tracks you like the best as favored tweets, and you can start researching the artists and downloading their music as soon as you're back home.
But wait, that's not all: Hawtin also wants to use the application to help small producers and indie artists get their fair share from performing rights organizations. Clubs have to pay organizations like ASCAP and BMI licensing fees for the public performance of their artists music.
The theory is that bands and DJs would fill out forms listing all the songs they played, but more often than not, this doesn't happen and ASCAP just receives the money without any further information. That money gets then divided up on the basis of existing data about public performances, much of which comes from Top 40 radio stations. Said Hawtin:
"By providing the necessary information to track what is really being played in clubs, the Twitter DJ application would not only drag the likes of GEMA, PRS and SOCAN kicking and screaming into the 21st century, but make sure the real artists get paid instead of performance payments simply being carved up between the Madonnas and U2s of the world. If record sales are slowing down and performance is now the key area where artists can achieve financial stability, better solutions need to be found and a workable structure put in place as soon as possible."
The major music labels are by far the most popular video publishers on YouTube, easily surpassing YouTube stars like Fred and MondoMedia by a few billion views, according to new stats from Tubemogul. Topping the list is Universal Music Group, which has been able to accumulate a total of 8.7 billion views on all of its official YouTube channels. ExpertVillage, on the other hand, which happens to be the most popular non-music publisher, accumulated only 770 million views — less than any of the four major labels as well as Disney offspring Hollywood Records.
The real loser of the list, however, is Warner Music. The label was able to accumulate almost 1.1 billion views until it pulled all of its content from YouTube earlier this year. Affected by the move were music videos from Madonna, Nickelback and Gnarls Barkley, among others. Since then, it has been losing out on millions of views each day, according to Tubemogul. Continue reading on Newteevee.com.
The real loser of the list, however, is Warner Music. The label was able to accumulate almost 1.1 billion views until it pulled all of its content from YouTube earlier this year. Affected by the move were music videos from Madonna, Nickelback and Gnarls Barkley, among others. Since then, it has been losing out on millions of views each day, according to Tubemogul. Continue reading on Newteevee.com.
One of the most interesting side effects of the file sharing debate has been that it has shed some light on music industry practices. Courtney Love opened up this debate almost ten years ago when she said that the real pirates aren't using Napster, but drafting recording contracts.
Lilly Allen echoed some of that criticism a few days ago. Allen actually came out against file sharing and artists that pretend it isnt't impacting record sales, but her blog entry didn't really make her label look good either:
"You don't start out in music with the Ferraris. Instead you get a huge debt from your record company, which you spend years working your arse off to repay. When you manage to get a contract, all those pretty videos and posters advertising your album have to be paid for and as the artist, you have to pay for them. I've only just finished paying off all the money I owe my record company. I'm lucky that I've been successful and managed to pay it back, but not everyone's so lucky. "
A few European indie labels associated with the Germany-based trade association VUT decided to set the record straight and tell file sharers that they're actually paying their artists. From VUT's press release:
"An artist signed with an independent label typically makes between 1.90 and 2.60 Euros per album sold for 15 Euros."
Artists get 19 Cents per 0.99 Euro digital download, according to VUT, and even more if they're also the composer of the song.
VUT CEO Eva Kiltz commented on these numbers this way:
"People getting their music for free should be aware that musicians and labels won't be able to produce any new music without returns from the sale of recorded music."
VUT represents between 10 and 15 percent of the German music market, according to its own estimates. An older VUT report (PDF) reveals that most of the labels organized in the association have two or less employees. Furthermore, a quick look at the most recent IMPALA awards reveals that only three VUT artists seem to have sold more than 30,000 units in 2008, which kind of begs the question: Isn't there a better way?
Lilly Allen echoed some of that criticism a few days ago. Allen actually came out against file sharing and artists that pretend it isnt't impacting record sales, but her blog entry didn't really make her label look good either:
"You don't start out in music with the Ferraris. Instead you get a huge debt from your record company, which you spend years working your arse off to repay. When you manage to get a contract, all those pretty videos and posters advertising your album have to be paid for and as the artist, you have to pay for them. I've only just finished paying off all the money I owe my record company. I'm lucky that I've been successful and managed to pay it back, but not everyone's so lucky. "
A few European indie labels associated with the Germany-based trade association VUT decided to set the record straight and tell file sharers that they're actually paying their artists. From VUT's press release:
"An artist signed with an independent label typically makes between 1.90 and 2.60 Euros per album sold for 15 Euros."
Artists get 19 Cents per 0.99 Euro digital download, according to VUT, and even more if they're also the composer of the song.
VUT CEO Eva Kiltz commented on these numbers this way:
"People getting their music for free should be aware that musicians and labels won't be able to produce any new music without returns from the sale of recorded music."
VUT represents between 10 and 15 percent of the German music market, according to its own estimates. An older VUT report (PDF) reveals that most of the labels organized in the association have two or less employees. Furthermore, a quick look at the most recent IMPALA awards reveals that only three VUT artists seem to have sold more than 30,000 units in 2008, which kind of begs the question: Isn't there a better way?
CNet's Greg Sandoval wrote up a great piece about the demise of the ad-supported music start-up Spiralfrog, which was supposed to lure people from file sharing sites by giving them DRM-protected free music. Sounds like a great plan, doesn't it?
Of course it didn't work out, and Spiralfrog shut down earlier this year. The company's demise has often been painted as a result of exorbitant music licensing fees, but Sandoval shows that Spiralfrog actually paid way more on advertising to get traffic to the site:
"According to a list of projected expenditures from July 2008, SpiralFrog expected to spend $2.8 million with Google that year and $1.5 million with Yahoo. Charges at rival MSN are unclear. The tab for AOL's affiliate marketing in 2008 was more than $3 million, an AOL attorney confirmed."
Spiralfrog also spent a ton of money on promotional stunts. The dance club site Spiralfrogclub.com, which I still think was one of the worst viral campaigns ever, cost the company half a million dollars. Ouch. And then they had to spend some more money to generate some traffic for it so that investors wouldn't question the nonsense. It's like an addict making up excuses for getting the next fix.
As I said, a great piece: However, it kind of left me with a question: Was it a mistake for Spiralfrog to spend that much money on traffic - or did they have to spend it because their product was crap?
Of course it didn't work out, and Spiralfrog shut down earlier this year. The company's demise has often been painted as a result of exorbitant music licensing fees, but Sandoval shows that Spiralfrog actually paid way more on advertising to get traffic to the site:
"According to a list of projected expenditures from July 2008, SpiralFrog expected to spend $2.8 million with Google that year and $1.5 million with Yahoo. Charges at rival MSN are unclear. The tab for AOL's affiliate marketing in 2008 was more than $3 million, an AOL attorney confirmed."
Spiralfrog also spent a ton of money on promotional stunts. The dance club site Spiralfrogclub.com, which I still think was one of the worst viral campaigns ever, cost the company half a million dollars. Ouch. And then they had to spend some more money to generate some traffic for it so that investors wouldn't question the nonsense. It's like an addict making up excuses for getting the next fix.
As I said, a great piece: However, it kind of left me with a question: Was it a mistake for Spiralfrog to spend that much money on traffic - or did they have to spend it because their product was crap?
The admins of the German Rapidshare link forum Leecher.to were probably a little uneasy at first when they recently received a letter from a record company in regards to a pre-release leak. The label in question told them that it had found a link to a house remix of a previously unreleased song by the German rapper Hassan Annouri.
However, Annouri's label didn't insist on taking down the song, and it didn't threaten them with any expensive lawsuits either. Instead, it concluded that it was too late to take any action because the genie was already out of the bottle, and expressed the hope that some of the users who downloaded the song would buy Annouri's upcoming record. "Good music doesn't have to be afraid of file sharing," the letter stated, adding that the label would rather make money by selling music instead of hunting down file sharers.
Leecher.to responded by adding Annouri's music video to its front page.
There has been some suspicion within the Leecher.to user base that the friendly letter isn't all there is to this story. Some think Annouri's label may have paid Leecher.to some money to advertise his music. Either way, it shows that Annouri knows where to find his fans, and that musicians like him are increasingly unafraid to embrace file sharing.
(via gulli)
However, Annouri's label didn't insist on taking down the song, and it didn't threaten them with any expensive lawsuits either. Instead, it concluded that it was too late to take any action because the genie was already out of the bottle, and expressed the hope that some of the users who downloaded the song would buy Annouri's upcoming record. "Good music doesn't have to be afraid of file sharing," the letter stated, adding that the label would rather make money by selling music instead of hunting down file sharers.
Leecher.to responded by adding Annouri's music video to its front page.
There has been some suspicion within the Leecher.to user base that the friendly letter isn't all there is to this story. Some think Annouri's label may have paid Leecher.to some money to advertise his music. Either way, it shows that Annouri knows where to find his fans, and that musicians like him are increasingly unafraid to embrace file sharing.
(via gulli)
German HipHop musician Thomas D. has a somewhat unusual request: He wants people to steal his music. Thomas D., who's been a member of the German HipHip pioneers Fantastische Vier, would apparently much rather have people donate money to worthwhile non-profit organizations than spend it on his records.
At least that's the message of a new online campaign that Thomas D. is spearheading for an organization called Roter Lotus (red lotus). Roter Lotus wants to build a hospital in northern India, and Thomas D. is trying to help the organization raise 500.000 Euro towards this goal.
(via gulli)
At least that's the message of a new online campaign that Thomas D. is spearheading for an organization called Roter Lotus (red lotus). Roter Lotus wants to build a hospital in northern India, and Thomas D. is trying to help the organization raise 500.000 Euro towards this goal.
(via gulli)
That didn't take long: The new Danger Mouse album Dark Night of the Soul found its way onto various torrent sites this weekend after reports surfaced that the Hip Hop producer won't be able to legally publish the record due to a dispute with the major label EMI.
NPR's website reported last Friday that Danger Mouse recently collaborated with Sparklehorse's Mark Linkous as well as Iggy Pop, Vic Chesnutt, Nina Persson and various other musicians for an album that was supposed to be accompanied with a 100 page photo book by David Lynch. However, it wasn't meant to be. The artists got into trouble with EMI, according to the project's website, which reads:
"Due to an ongoing disput with EMI, Danger Mouse is unable to release the recorded music for Dark Night of the Soul without fear of being sued by EMI. Danger Mouse remains hugely proud of Dark Night of the Soul and hopes that people lucky enough to hear the music, by whatever means, are as excited as he is."
You gotta admit: By whatever means does sound much classier than just saying: Please torrent my album! However, Danger Mouse was apparently worried that some fans wouldn't get this almost Malcom X-like reference to file sharing, which is why he came up with another brilliant plan: Dark Night of the Soul still gets released at the end of May - as an empty CD-R. The project's online store explains it this way:
"Due to an ongoing dispute with EMI, Danger Mouse is unable to include music on the CD without fear of legal entanglement. Therefore, he has included a blank CD-R as an artifact to use however you see fit."
However you see fit: A number of file sharers got the message and started to seed the album on various torrent sites. The first few uploads were rips of a stream hosted by NPR, but there's also at least one copy of the album with a slightly higher MP3 bitrate, which is currently seeded by hundreds of users on the Pirate Bay. The original uploader simply linked to a few news stories about Dark Night of the Soul and commented: "Lets try that again shall we :P"
NPR's website reported last Friday that Danger Mouse recently collaborated with Sparklehorse's Mark Linkous as well as Iggy Pop, Vic Chesnutt, Nina Persson and various other musicians for an album that was supposed to be accompanied with a 100 page photo book by David Lynch. However, it wasn't meant to be. The artists got into trouble with EMI, according to the project's website, which reads:
"Due to an ongoing disput with EMI, Danger Mouse is unable to release the recorded music for Dark Night of the Soul without fear of being sued by EMI. Danger Mouse remains hugely proud of Dark Night of the Soul and hopes that people lucky enough to hear the music, by whatever means, are as excited as he is."
You gotta admit: By whatever means does sound much classier than just saying: Please torrent my album! However, Danger Mouse was apparently worried that some fans wouldn't get this almost Malcom X-like reference to file sharing, which is why he came up with another brilliant plan: Dark Night of the Soul still gets released at the end of May - as an empty CD-R. The project's online store explains it this way:
"Due to an ongoing dispute with EMI, Danger Mouse is unable to include music on the CD without fear of legal entanglement. Therefore, he has included a blank CD-R as an artifact to use however you see fit."
However you see fit: A number of file sharers got the message and started to seed the album on various torrent sites. The first few uploads were rips of a stream hosted by NPR, but there's also at least one copy of the album with a slightly higher MP3 bitrate, which is currently seeded by hundreds of users on the Pirate Bay. The original uploader simply linked to a few news stories about Dark Night of the Soul and commented: "Lets try that again shall we :P"
Germany's coalition government advanced a bill yesterday that would force all ISPs to block access to around 1500 websites hosting child porn. Users that access these sites will instead be greeted by a stop sign. ISPs will be logging the IP numbers of visitors trying to access any of these sites and provide that data to law enforcement officials upon request.
The bill has been highly controversial in Germany. Net activists and civil liberties advocates have staunchly opposed such a centralized block list, and the German weekly Die Zeit called it "undemocratic".
However, not everybody is that unhappy about the prospects of a government-controlled Internet. Dieter Gorny, head of the Germany IFPI, recently said that the block list is "the right signal," according to c't magazine. Gorny continued:
"This is about government regulation of the Internet favored by our society, and part of that is the protection of intellectual property."
In other words: Child porn is just a first step, torrent sites like The Pirate Bay are next. This is not the first time the music industry is trying to enforce ISP-based censorship in Germany. Gorny's organization proposed a similar scheme back in 2000 that was touted as "digital border checkpoints." These efforts went nowhere, but that won't stop the industry from trying again.
The bill has been highly controversial in Germany. Net activists and civil liberties advocates have staunchly opposed such a centralized block list, and the German weekly Die Zeit called it "undemocratic".
However, not everybody is that unhappy about the prospects of a government-controlled Internet. Dieter Gorny, head of the Germany IFPI, recently said that the block list is "the right signal," according to c't magazine. Gorny continued:
"This is about government regulation of the Internet favored by our society, and part of that is the protection of intellectual property."
In other words: Child porn is just a first step, torrent sites like The Pirate Bay are next. This is not the first time the music industry is trying to enforce ISP-based censorship in Germany. Gorny's organization proposed a similar scheme back in 2000 that was touted as "digital border checkpoints." These efforts went nowhere, but that won't stop the industry from trying again.
German blogger Robert Gehring recently published a fascinating piece analyzing the reasons CD sales have been declining in the US. Gehring took a closer look at the US sales numbers published by the RIAA for the years 1990 to 2007 to figure out what exactly causes the current crisis. His conclusion?
"The market for physical audio recordings has been significantly impacted by the specific features of CDs."
In other words: Don't blame file sharing networks for effects that are caused by the CD format itself. Gehring believes that the initial boom of audio CDs was primarily caused by the fact that people wanted to convert their entire music collection to the new, digital format, and as a result even bought legacy albums that they already owned on vinyl or tape. Gehring calls this the growth phase of the CD, which approximately lasted from 1991 to 1994.
(used with permission)
After that, the market went through a phase of consolidation, which approximately lasted from '94 to 2000, according to Gehring. There's not much more growth during that phase, and sales of recorded music are more or less stable, averaging around a billion recordings per year. The CD has gained a market share of 90 percent at this time, and most consumers are starting to have substantial CD collections.
Of course, those CD collections are all digital, perfect copies. People may not copy or rip CDs that much during the 90ies, but that doesn't mean that they don't trade or sell them, opening up a whole new secondary market.
Sure, there's always been second hand record stores, but vinyl recordings were scratching, and only hardcore collectors were willing to wade through huge bins of used vinyl to find what they wanted. The sound quality of CDs on the other hand didn't deteriorate as much, so it was easier to resell the ones you didn't like.
Add Ebay to the mix, and you'll end up with a huge secondary market that eats away shares of traditional music sales. And that's what exactly what happened after 2000, Gehring believes. Here's a quote from his article:
"Up until 2007 a total of 12 billion CDs have been sold (in the US). It's safe to assume that at least 10 billion if these CDs still exist, even if you consider a certain degree of wear and tear. A substantial number of these CDs is part of the secondary market."
(used with permission)
I think that's a very interesting perspective, especially if you consider that traditionally, most of the best-selling albums that get the RIAA's gold and platinum awards have been legacy titles, meaning that classics from the Rolling Stones and the Beatles have been huge money makers for the industry for the years. of course, those are the very albums that are also big on the secondary market. You simply don't get as many used 2009 CDs on Ebay.
Does that mean that file sharing has no impact at all on record sales? I doubt it. Napster and its predecessors have taught a whole generation to consumer their music via their PC and mobile players. Those folks don't really care for physical sound recordings, be it used or new. However, the fact that an older audience that may not be as much int file sharing also has access to cheap music through this secondary market has definitely worsened the crisis the music industry is facing.
"The market for physical audio recordings has been significantly impacted by the specific features of CDs."
In other words: Don't blame file sharing networks for effects that are caused by the CD format itself. Gehring believes that the initial boom of audio CDs was primarily caused by the fact that people wanted to convert their entire music collection to the new, digital format, and as a result even bought legacy albums that they already owned on vinyl or tape. Gehring calls this the growth phase of the CD, which approximately lasted from 1991 to 1994.
(used with permission)
After that, the market went through a phase of consolidation, which approximately lasted from '94 to 2000, according to Gehring. There's not much more growth during that phase, and sales of recorded music are more or less stable, averaging around a billion recordings per year. The CD has gained a market share of 90 percent at this time, and most consumers are starting to have substantial CD collections.
Of course, those CD collections are all digital, perfect copies. People may not copy or rip CDs that much during the 90ies, but that doesn't mean that they don't trade or sell them, opening up a whole new secondary market.
Sure, there's always been second hand record stores, but vinyl recordings were scratching, and only hardcore collectors were willing to wade through huge bins of used vinyl to find what they wanted. The sound quality of CDs on the other hand didn't deteriorate as much, so it was easier to resell the ones you didn't like.
Add Ebay to the mix, and you'll end up with a huge secondary market that eats away shares of traditional music sales. And that's what exactly what happened after 2000, Gehring believes. Here's a quote from his article:
"Up until 2007 a total of 12 billion CDs have been sold (in the US). It's safe to assume that at least 10 billion if these CDs still exist, even if you consider a certain degree of wear and tear. A substantial number of these CDs is part of the secondary market."
(used with permission)
I think that's a very interesting perspective, especially if you consider that traditionally, most of the best-selling albums that get the RIAA's gold and platinum awards have been legacy titles, meaning that classics from the Rolling Stones and the Beatles have been huge money makers for the industry for the years. of course, those are the very albums that are also big on the secondary market. You simply don't get as many used 2009 CDs on Ebay.
Does that mean that file sharing has no impact at all on record sales? I doubt it. Napster and its predecessors have taught a whole generation to consumer their music via their PC and mobile players. Those folks don't really care for physical sound recordings, be it used or new. However, the fact that an older audience that may not be as much int file sharing also has access to cheap music through this secondary market has definitely worsened the crisis the music industry is facing.
