This looks suspiciously like another
example in the wave of glib and confusing assurances that file-sharing is on the wane, being quickly replaced by
licensed online music stores. In an unpublished, invisible (except to subscribers) study, Nielsen Soundscan, which
tracks music sales in a variety of formats and whose biggest clients are the record labels, says that paid downloads
tripled in the first six months of 2005 over last year. Fine. Perhaps it is only the
reporting of the study
that stumbles ineptly. (I have not seen Soundscan's press release, but have requested it.) Almost everything about the
AFP wire-service report breeds suspicion; these pieces are usually loosely copied from the press releases.
"The number of song downloads at authorized websites tripled…" Whenever an article refers to "Websites" when
discussing online music services or file-sharing networks, you know right away that cluelessness prevails.
"US Internet users downloaded 159 million individual songs over the period, compared with 55 million in the same
period in 2004…" Since a few of the biggest authorized services operate like jukeboxes, the question naturally arises
whether the "downloading" includes streaming. And if not, why not? If paid downloading can displace other types of
consumer activity, which is the point of the article, why can't streaming via Rhapsody, Napster, or Yahoo! Music
Unlimited? And what about the "To Go" products from each of those services? Are those tracks counted as downloads?
WHERE is the study?
"The survey confirmed that Internet users are moving away from piracy on peer-to-peer networks and gravitating toward
pay-per-download sites…" Excuse me? "Confirmed"? It did no such thing, and to say so is such a preposterous presumption
that it must come from an industry mouthpiece. People can buy a track on iTMS then spend the rest of the night
downloading albums through Bit Torrent. Both realms could be expanding, the darknet side growing faster. Any number of
scenarios could confirm the study results without also confirming the P2P is reduced.
"It's a tremendous burst, given the amount of piracy," said Rob Sisco, president of Nielsen Music. IN fact, the
reverse is true. given the amount of piracy, there is nothing tremendous about the number of licensed downloads, and
probably won't be for years. Now, if one were to measure all Internet radio listening (legal), all service streaming
(legal), all To Go portage (legal), all one-fee downloading as in eMusic (legal), all indie-site downloading (legal),
and many other consumer behaviors I won't tiresomely list, it would all aggregate into a "tremendous burst." But that's
not the burst the industry wants to publicize. That's the burst that implies a difficult future in which incremental
products lose their value and labels lose their business models.
1. You are right. There is likely a slow and steady stream of people that are using their computers as a "transport mechanism" (or whatever you want to call it - a player) for their music experiences and consumption. You would expect both the legit online services registering bigger numbers while the P2P services would be growing too.
In fact, if you think about it, there are likely two sets of circumstances that would cause both legit downloads/subscriptions and illegal P2P usage to grow. First off, a whole generation of school kids and tech savvy adults were using P2P sites when they first came out, and they are probably still using them...along with a whole new crop of young kids who came along behind them. Meanwhile, the iPod and subscription service offerings would have convinced a few million adult types to go ahead and start buying legit downloads. If that's happening, then both sets of users would be doing more with online music.
www.adambrotman.blogs.com
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Adam Brotman