Music downloads increase, says study

The number of people downloading music on the Internet has increased according to a survey by Pew Internet & American Life Project. Between November 2003 and March 2004 there was a 27 percent increase in the number of downloaders, which translates to an increase from 18 to 23 million.

The survey was ran among 1371 users who were using both peer-to-peer networks, such as Kazaa and LimeWire, and online music stores, such as iTunes and Napster.

Fourteen percent of the online users surveyed had stopped downloading from the Internet. A third of those said the reason was the legal actions taken against P2P downloaders by RIAA. The number of Kazaa users dropped by five million, but most of those switched to other, smaller P2P services.

The study also had the following to say about the number of legal download service users: "While online music services like ITunes are far from trumping the popularity of file-sharing networks, 17 percent of current music downloaders say they are using these paid services. Overall, 7 percent of Internet users say they have bought music at these new services at one time or another, including 3 percent who currently use paid services."

Source: PCWorld.com

Written by: Jari Ketola @ 27 Apr 2004 10:24

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

19 comments

Squirmy

Hey 'sup y'all. I just wanna say that in a way this is good, I mean people who use Kazaa and other p2p systems are taking money away from the record companies. But let's face it, if you tell someone not to do something they're gonna want to do it even more. I personally think that this p2p "crackdown" is BS. I mean yes record companies are loosing money but thats not my problem and i dont think they're loosing that much money anyway. Let's face it, downloading is a hell of alot easier then going out to the store and buying a CD for 1 song. Technically it's not illegal until you burn the songs onto a CD and then sell the CD. People dont want to pay $20 for a CD that as soon as it gets a scratch on it its no good. Lets face it.....downloading is better...better quality and its free.

27.4.2004 12:09 #1

brian100

I think the attitude that you have used here will encourage the RIAA & other worldwide authroities to chase P2P users to the depths of hell. If everyone thought like you there would be NO music industry at all !!!. What a dull world !!

Flame me for all you want, personally i think your attitude sucks like a toothless shark on a rubber dolphin.

Why are The Samaritans always engaged?

27.4.2004 12:28 #2

Squirmy

Thats fine....thats your own personal opinion and i respect that. i'm not saying that go after every person that downloads music cause that would be a waste of time, people will come out with new programs to "beat the system" so to speak. I'm not saying that i dont download music, but if you were a record company would you be pissed that someone could just download your song for free?....i would be. but seeing as im not i really dont care...i'll keep downloading till they come for me.

27.4.2004 13:15 #3

Squirmy

27.4.2004 13:16 #4

Squirmy

27.4.2004 13:16 #5

Squirmy

27.4.2004 13:16 #6

brian100

Well i hope that no one enters your house tonight and steals everything...then burns the house down..and escapes in your car...on second thought it's not my House or car....so hey who cares..it's not my problem is it?

Why are The Samaritans always engaged?

27.4.2004 13:28 #7

Squirmy

no its not your problem.....wats your point?

27.4.2004 13:31 #8

brian100

I used an example of theft, chaos & destruction which echoes your sentiments & views in your previous posts..thats my point..

Why are The Samaritans always engaged?

27.4.2004 13:48 #9

Nephilim

Quote:I mean people who use Kazaa and other p2p systems are taking money away from the record companiesAnd why are you so loyal to record compamies that have made their money shafting not only consumers but the artists themselves. Don't you think artists should get more than $2 per $18 CD sold? Do you realize that the artists don't even own their music? The labels do.

When a new artist gets signed the label fromts them a big wad of money up front. Then the artist goes to the studio to record the album and the label charges them for every studio related cost out of that big wad of money they gave the artist. Then, after the artist has paid for recording the album, he/she still doesn't own their music. Kinda like paying for a car but in the end you still don't own it. How is that fair?

The big labels aren't responsible for bringing us all our music. Every single great band started out indie and the labels could care less about them until the artist has potential to make the label a lot of money. Labels care nothing about bands, only profits. If all the big labels disappeard there would still be music - there's been music for centuries.

Try reading this article by Steve Albini. He's the guy who produced Nirvana's "In Utero". The guy knows how the labels work.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I encourage you to read the article, then come back and tell us how you feel.

27.4.2004 16:19 #10

brian100

Nephilim

It's a very interesting & enlightening article, but i'm afraid that it does not change my mind, one jot, on P2P file sharing. I am totally against any kind of "free" illegal downloading. Perhaps i'm a bit old fashioned in my beliefs. To me Theft is Theft, plain & simple.

It's a fact of life that the big rich guy (nearly) always screws the small guy. But it's life, it's business. It may be totally wrong & dispicable BUT it's not breaking any law.

Why are The Samaritans always engaged?

27.4.2004 16:46 #11

Nephilim

In no way, shape or form am I against an artist getting fair compensation for his/her work, I'm absolutely for it. Under the current system the labels have everyone but the labels get screwed.

The are plenty of popular artists, Phish, Ween and Janis Ian for example, that allow fans to download their tracks because they realize it's a good way to advertise and gain new fans and the same goes for indies.

People don't buy new CDs because they cost too much and oftentimes aren't very good aside from a couple tracks. Many don't like the pay services because they don't have a good selection and the music is DRM'ed. I can't and won't sympathize for the labels and the artists that stay with them when brought this situation upon themselves. Instead of adapting and changing in order to give customers what they want they continue to try to dictate what we can and can't have. This is simply piss poor business sense.

Lions go to where the food is, they don't sue the gazelles for not jumping in their mouths :)

27.4.2004 22:14 #12

Ghostdog

Personally I�m against mass consumption of music by downloading it off Kazaa, IRC or some other place. I know that there are people that do this. But occasionally downloading some songs from a band you think sounds worthy of more attention or sharing music with your friends I think isn�t that much of a moral crime.

28.4.2004 06:17 #13

Cyclonick

I truly don't believe that all the people downloading on p2p are ''the bad guys''. Hell with that article that nephilim linked, who would still be on the side of the record labels?! I say this for the Artists, you want us to buy your music? Open a web page, and charge your songs there.. people would be able to download the songs they want, and pay for what they want.. Yes some people will still not buy your song and download them instead. But we're in a new era, you need to adapt. An artist in my country, made a cd, with a ''secret code'' to enter a special section on his website, to download ''bonus tracks'', that's a pretty good idea to get people to buy your cds. By offering your songs on the net.. and charge, I don't know.. a buck for each, instead of getting 2$ per album, you'll get 18$ for a 18 songs album.. The enemy is not us, the record labels were from the beginning.

That was my 2 cents.

28.4.2004 09:36 #14

Squirmy

you know what....thats a damn good idea. it makes more sense and the artists would get more money. but you can do that now......for free...so why would people pay to download?..

28.4.2004 10:35 #15

GrayArea

brian 100 "It may be totally wrong & despicable BUT it's not breaking any law."

The guv and big biz gotta love people who think like you. I feel like saying more but I will bite my virtual tongue instead... It obviously wouldn't change your "very clean" mind anyway.

Question authority.

28.4.2004 14:02 #16

Nephilim

The record industry put themselves and the artists they represent into this position, not us.

riaa knows it's reason for being is gone with the advent of the internet and the opportunities it gives artists to sell themselves instead of getting pimped and screwed.

I don't have any problem paying for my music and have been buying loads of indie (cdbaby.com) which has turned out to be some of the best, most refreshing music I've heard in a long time. Plus the artists get their fair share and that's the way it should be.

I have a real problem supporting an artist that stands by and says/does nothing while music lovers are getting sued. They don't support me, I don't support them.

I don't agree with mass downloading, but with the current quality of music, the price for it and the litigious attitude of RIAA I don't exactly blame people either.

I guess I'm in a relatively good position because all of my favorite RIAA music of old was bought years ago and all the new RIAA stuff I've heard is garbage.

All my new music is bought from http://cdbaby.com/ And yes, I'm pimping the site because it rocks :)

28.4.2004 14:03 #17

Nephilim

Forgot to mention that I rarely if ever use p2p, so this isn't coming from someone with a vested interest in p2p.

28.4.2004 14:06 #18

mugglyn

Quote:
"Open a web page, and charge your songs there.. "

There are already artists who have websites which allow their fans to listen to their songs for *FREE*

8.7.2004 13:48 #19

AfterDawn: News