ARIA (the Oz version of RIAA) and the major record companies have blamed internet based music piracy for a decrease in sales, and have used the supposed existence of internet piracy as a justification to launch legal proceedings against P2P companies. These claims have been disputed by an Oz academic. According to an analysis of new CD release patterns conducted by this academic, the number of new album releases by Australian record companies has fallen by nearly 50% in the past 4 years. He says consumers have less choice than ever before. While there has been an increase in DVD music sales, this has not been enough to compensate Australians for this big fall in album releases, and a 30% fall in CD single releases. Fans of music outside of the “top 40” have suffered especially. Consumers who have gone searching for a specific classical/folk/country/world music release have found that retailers simply do not have them not in stock. As a result, consumers have turned to P2P services to provide the music they wish to obtain, or they have purchased their preferred form of music from eBay, or e-tailers based in the US. Some consumers have abandoned CDs entirely, and have turned to other forms of entertainment such as games & DVDs.

So much for piracy hurting the record biz. The actions of the majors have cut their own throats.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Music/CD-retailers-advocate-nicensafe/2004/12/29/1103996608131.html

This is no suprise that the problem of music by the majors is both a manufactured one and a result of bad business models. Many at this site have leveled these same sort of comments before. Only the statistics we get aren't precentages, they are units shipped and as such is far easier to hide the real things.

The more the majors squall, the more attention it gets. Not just from the paid lobbyists but from people wanting to know who, how, and why. Since the majors in some form or another have strings to major media it is easy to cover the "going public" with figures. They might sponsor 5 studies to pick the one that reflects the image they wish to project.

When someone outside the circle comes up with a study then it is put down as not being an accurate picture of the process and they go cover their tracks. As long as the book keeping can be hidden then it takes a lot of leg work to hunt down some of the stuff. More and more people are getting curious and that is a good sign. More eyes turn up more things that don't reflect what the majors wish to project. This tends to shoot holes in the image and puts the majors back to damage control and spin doctoring.

The points of this article have been made over and over here. Naturally the world at large doesn't read this forum so they have to reinvent the wheel to tell us what we already know. Still it is good to be shown that the picture being painted by the majors isn't the whole truth and that independant study comes up with the same things that we have been stating all along.

Funny how it works out isn't it?

So, what else is new?

"Naturally the world at large doesn't read this forum"

Let's do something about that wet1.

Such as....? I'd like to see somebody (with artistic talent) come up with a poster that would not only explain Boycott-RIAA, but give an alternative...like, say, DMusic. I don't think it's going to work to just tell kids, "Don't buy music;" I think they need to know there is another choice, and that it won't get them sued.

we need to get a rolling promotional gig on wheels and go to different schools like the majors have tried to do, I think once kids get the whole picture there would be some minds changed. If not a lot of minds do this sort of like a road trip and bring along some music and or a live band.
Maybe pass out info with the message that theres more on the site I know funding could be a problem but it could be done, I just feel we need to have some offline exposure in the way that the RIAA's trying to do if they feel the need to spread like the plague then we should too the reward would be more kids would know the alternative to what the majors have been telling them.

larry... SEE WHAT I MEAN??? Gimme the keys! Let's get ON IT!

Now for the story up above whats new everytime some big name schools do a report on the RIAA/ARIA it seems to be to them not worth anybodys attention but it seems funny that the RIAA/ARIA keep telling people the sky's falling and it doesn't seem to ring true but as long as there is guilable people and people blinded by the green handed out by the RIAA/ARIA people won't be able to make any good decisions concerning how stupidly greedy and dumb the RIAA/ARIA is.

We WANT the sky to fall on the RIAA.

We do it by NOT sharing RIAA tunes.

You CAN'T "advertise" them to death.

(It's all reverse psyche folks!)

STOP SHARING/PROMOTING THE RIAA!

Support Local and Independent Music ONLY!

Shmoo

Less choice Less sales Find by me!!!! The end maybe near!!!!! But let's sue all we can before we smarten up and change our business model!!!!

A road trip would be great, but very expensive. And I don't know that most schools would let you walk in and tell the kids anything. But I'm so tired of kids being sued, and not knowing what they did was going to get them in trouble. The RIAA says the purpose of the sue-'em-all campaign is to "enlighten" the public. We all know that is pure bullshit. But maybe a list of local indy bands, indy sites where they can download music with impunity, and a real ad campaign about the evil empire could be spread around. I know the mainstream media is absolutely no help, because the last story the week before Christmas didn't even make it into my Miami Herald. So much for the "enlightenment" crap. When the stories did make the papers, they were buried in the business section--lots of students read that for fun, ya know. So maybe a few posters strategically placed would be more helpful. Whaddaya think???

I believe copyright infringement was the justification relied on to commence the case in Australia not sales.

The article was a little light on for actual proof, wonder if the author ever intends producing the so called evidence.

Very true Codeworrier2.
The claim ?

Copyright infringement causes lost sales.

Of course,
Any regular reader knows that there
have been plenty of studies that show
that to be , false .. untrue .. a lie.

Copyright infringement is the legal basis.
Lost sales is how they justify suing.

and you,
are simply a poopy head

My kids help me spread the word to the school.
Ever since the RIAA shills paid their admission to the school, I have my kids
pass out links to the sites.

Gee this is the same strategy the RIAA used to begin suing file sharers. They cut out CD singles, reduced their rosters, cut out signing new acts, and reduced new releases. And this was LONG before Napster started cooking, wasn't it?

"The article was a little light on for actual proof, wonder if the author ever intends producing the so called evidence."

Well, you stupid fuckety fucking fuck, had you read the actual article, you would realize that this is going to be a doctoral thesis instead of a "sue them but never take them to court" case, so the evidence WILL be presented.

"A former in-house lawyer for the Australian Recording Industry Association, Alex Malik, conducted the research as part of his PhD into music copyright enforcement."

Or should we simply not believe this guy because he used to work for the ARIA?

In education, it's not enough to insist repeatedly that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You have to defend your thesis. And it has to be believable.

"I believe copyright infringement was the justification relied on to commence the case in Australia not sales."

Copyright infringement? That's not what you said a week ago.

"Oh, downloaders are unreal criminals. I get it now. You can't get past the point that when you take someone elses property without their permission you are doing the wrong thing."

Taking someone's property is theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Make up your mind.

INeedALover -- Actually it was NOT long before Napster. It happened as soon as they saw Napster. 1999 had the peak number of new releases and best sales ever.

When the RIAA began to complain that Napster was going to hurt sales, it created a self-fulfilling prophesy by reducing the number of releases by 9% in 2000 and a similar volume cut in 2001.

This brought the total releases down about 18% in two years. Enough to "prove" their claim.

1999 was also the last year the RIAA bothered to keep track of new releases. They had 38,900.

"Last year, sources say, WMG issued about 1,000 titles of the 7,581 new releases Nielsen SoundScan counted for 2003. The company's new-album total will be even lower this year."

Looks like an 80% reduction in selection to me. This entire five-year exercise has been nothing less than a farce.

And the only ones paying for the industry arrogance? The contracturally obligated slaves.

So, first they said something bad was going to happen, then they manipulated events to make it appear as if it happened just like they said it would; and they presented facts to bolster their arguments--oh, wait, I was talking about another organization there for a minute. Sorry....

George (and ShadowMom) — GREAT stuff!

A relevant note...

SoundScan always releases their end-of-year numbers immediately after the year ends. Last year, they ended the year on Dec. 28 and started posting their numbers on the 29th.

The 2004 numbers are out and extremely conspicuous by their total absence from the press.

They're down again. We're killing them.

Maybe their figures are (ssshhhh!) top secret now. So we don't find out how they're doing.

As for new releases, one has to wonder how something qualifies as new. Go look at Billboard's New Releases for January 4.

Here's the link:
http://www.billboard.com/bb/releases/week_3/index.jsp

The first thing you'll notice is that it's already Week 3 of 2005.

You can Check my numbers, but here's how I added it up:

403 total releases.
2 Blues
5 Country
3 Folk
33 Jazz
88 Latin
16 R&B
20 Rap
163 Rock
73 World

Of these, 68 are compilations by that most excellent band, "Various Artists." Another 80 are definite reissues, greatest hits and recycled dead dudes. Half of the rock entries alone are clearly in this group.

That alone knocks the 403 new releases down to a potential 255 that are actually new music. Since I don't speak Spanish, I couldn't very well scrutinize the Latin or World music titles and I'm a little weak on the jazz, too, so your mileage may vary.

All in all, it looks like half the new releases are not new at all, probably closer to 60%. Unless Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks" is somehow different in Japan (other than obvious packaging language).

Which number counts when they add it up at the end of the year? The inflated one, of course.

Next week, we get 8 "new" Eurythmics CDs, 2 Roy Orbison treats (including a well-timed Christmas album), the German deluxe edition of Beatles' First, 7 Pogues albums, the Mamas and the Papas, and a bunch of old Motown.

And if you look real hard, maybe you'll find the Libertines' self-titled CD. That one may actually be new.

Once again proving that you can't believe a single word the industry says.

"Let's do something about that wet1."

I do.

Lots of people are exposed to tidbits, mainly titles or a snippet of the article and referred here by hyperlink for the rest. I do my best to spread it wide and far.

Someone told me yesterday that there is some anarchist using my netname sounding off at this site...

That list was crazy--they're still trying to cash in on the oldies. How many times do they think we want to buy the damn things? And I've not been paying that much attention lately, so a lot of those "new" groups don't ring any bells with me. The Libertines?

The less they "release" the better.