AfterDawn: News

Worldwide legal music downloads tripled

Figures released by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) have shown that legal music downloading has tripled worldwide. Earlier this month the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) announced that 10 million downloads had been made so far in 2005, more than double the total 2004 figure in the UK. France and Germany are also two more countries that have seen sharp rises in legal music sales over the Internet.

180 million downloads have been made so far worldwide in 2005. This has led the IFPI to claims that they are winning the "fight against file sharing". Illegal filesharing also saw a rise of 3% since January. Those who have turned to legal alternatives often cite fear of litigation for their change. 14,227 cases against illegal file-sharers have been announced in 12 countries (over 10,000 in the United States) since September 2003.



"We are now seeing real evidence that people are increasingly put off by illegal file-sharing and turning to legal ways of enjoying music online," said John Kennedy, chairman of the IFPI. "Whether it's the fear of getting caught breaking the law, or the realisation that many networks could damage your home PC, attitudes are changing, and that is good news for the whole music industry."

While the figures do allow John Kennedy to make such positive statements for the music industry, it is not time to call it a victory just yet. Many people forget that MP3 has been around for years more than services like iTunes that allow you to legally download music. P2P also came first so naturally people saw the opportunity to share their full music collections with other. Since legal alternatives are only "new", is it not expected that sales would make huge jumps annually for at last a few years?

Also Mr. Kennedy's claim that "many networks could damage your home PC" is very unfair and a deliberate attempt to blacken the name of many legitimate P2P businesses. If he studied the situation well enough he would know that P2P users are generally moving away from less desirable options like Kazaa, to much safer (often open source like eMule or BitTorrent) software. In fact, it now seems that the P2P software that is most popular and best to use, are the titles with no adware or spyware that have been known to cause problems.

It is also time to set another point straight for once. It seems nearly every news story you read now tells you about "upcoming legal P2P services" or "authorised services". Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, MGM vs. Grokster didn't make P2P networks illegal at all. Some news sources and press releases even go as far as to call P2P networks "illegal". The only difference between existing P2P networks and these upcoming "legal" and "authorised" services is that one actually uses software to track files that are shared.



Source:
BBC News

Written by: James Delahunty @ 21 Jul 2005 18:51

• Previous article

• Maintenance downtime at AfterDawn download server

• Next article

• Hot Coffee leaves San Andreas with AO rating

• 11 comments

• kinza

  You know it's not a war amongst illegal and legal. Music and movies have to be more accessible and convenient.

  21.7.2005 19:50 #1

• neewbie

  well im not scared if i download a song for free...or album for that matter. it my choice if i want to pay for it and i dont want to!

  21.7.2005 19:51 #2

• nonoitall

  Quote:This has led the IFPI to claims that they are winning the "fight against file sharing".LOL. They're doing no such thing - they're just happy now that they've found a way to use it to suck money out of people. Quote:"We are now seeing real evidence that people are increasingly put off by illegal file-sharing and turning to legal ways of enjoying music online,"All for the wrong reasons - as was mentioned this is mainly out of fear.
  
  Until the industry stops being so penny-pinching and greedy, they will always be fighting. When someone's that greedy, they are never satisfied with what they have. The price of music hasn't come down that much (at all?) dispite having very inexpensive mediums of distribution (the internet and even CDs) and until they start charging what it really costs to produce a song, I won't buy music from them.

  21.7.2005 21:47 #3

• jAmEsTn

  .. and what about the millions of files downloaded illegally daily?... 10 million downloads for 7 months isnt alot for a worldwide figure.. gotta remember too that only ONE song per file is being downloaded also...
  Quote:"Whether it's the fear of getting caught breaking the law, or the realisation that many networks could damage your home PC, attitudes are changing, and that is good news for the whole music industry."on the lighter note.. i forgot to add.... ***K the music industry... bite muh behind beitches :D

  21.7.2005 22:13 #4

• mystic

  Has anyone noticed that now that they (riaa) are getting their cut theyre happy and willing to say that music online is fine... well its about time... the only thing that putting music that you can pick the "good " songs and download them and burn them... now if movies are going to be released the same way and old tv shows not just on dvds so you have to buy the whole series ( like who really likes all the old star trek) or bevely hillbillies or even Doc Who ( i mean there where 6 or 7 of him at this point) so why not let us pick what we want to see and hear. the record companys have been putting filler on albums and tapes andeven cds for years. and over charging us all so its about time that we get to pick the tune that we grove too.....

  22.7.2005 04:55 #5

• Neviar

  i will not stop sharing and jamestn you are so right. there are like 10 million illegal song downloads a week at least 10 million in 7 months is nothing.

  22.7.2005 08:59 #6

• cnmoores

  I must admit that I'm fed up to the back teeth with all the nonsense that comes out of the music industry about file sharing 'killing' the industry. They earn vast fortunes of the back of joe public day in and day out. If they were willing to reduce the cost of singles and albums they'd probably find that more people would be willing to pay.
  Very few big companies are willing to take a chance on 'unknown' groups, who also tend to put their music on the web for next to nothing or even free, so where's all this profit going? Into the pockets of the fat cats, that's where.

  22.7.2005 18:37 #7

• Lethal_B

  neviar you are right. i heard that for every legal music download made on legit services there are 46 illegal dloads make...they said something about winning the fight.....lol i rest my case

  23.7.2005 07:24 #8

• whoozhe

  The music industry has yet to come clean with thier books.
  They refuse to show the public just how much they make, how much of total turnover is paid out in royalties and the percentage of all their signed artists who actually recieve a payment.
  Sinfer janis ian (www.janisian.com) has had 20 albums and still owes her record company thousands in so called production costs which are deducted from any due royalties.
  Oh yes if a CD sells the artist/writer pays all the bills.

  23.7.2005 09:25 #9

• SGSeries2

  I tried a few free "legal" downloads, (none from iTunes, but I suspect similiar results,) and I was rather disappointed with the "quality" wma files, let alone all the garbage you have to go through with windows media player to "verify" that you have a legit copy of the song. It's rediculous. (I never wanted WMP9+ on my machine, but they give you no other choice for you to play them.) My legal downloading days may just be over. If I don't like it when they give 'em to me for free, I surely not going to like them if I have to pay for them. I'm not paying for something that's quality is "comparable" to cd quality. If I'm going to "legally" download music, I want either lossless compression or "dvd-quality" compressed files and none of this rediculous drm stuff.

  26.7.2005 08:15 #10

• nonoitall

  Definitely agree with you. Another reason for me was that they just don't have the music I want. If they drop DRM, get a bigger selection, drop their prices to what the song is actually worth, and offer better quality content, maybe I'll consider buying from them, but right now these "services" are completely unappealing to me.

  26.7.2005 12:13 #11