90% of music downloads illegal

The music industry has said that while it has started making money from music downloading, more than 90 percent of downloaded music is illegal. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, or IFPI, said record companies' revenue from digital music sales rose 40 per cent to US$2.9 billion over the past year. This growth is not covering losses from collapse of international CD sales, the music industry's global trade body said.

CD sales fell 11 percent between 2005 and 2006, and were likely to drop further in 2007. Unfortunately, the music industry has been known to inflate the impact of music piracy to almost comedic proportions to plead its cause.

News source: Fudzilla

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Vvikoo 8800GT Max 1GB Review

Next Story

IGN Top 10 Most Anticipated Games for 2008

59 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Not really surprising. I'm a sucker for physical media, and I'd miss not having a record collection. I have friends who never buy anything though, they don't see it as stealing.

The music industry has and will have some serious issues..

the barrier to steal and to share is just not there...technology is their worse enemy!

Even if people didn't want to steal what should they do?

Most people have multple devices for playing their music (computer, car CD player, MP3 player...and so)

I want to play my legally bought music on any of my devices whenever I want..am I suppose to carry around every CD that I own?

simple ease of use points out how much trouble they have and will have going forward...

1 person's ability to play his legally bought music points out the problem with the music industry

Its not like they lost 90% of sales from it though.

Before they sold 10.... now they sell 10 and another 9 probably get stolen. Not, now they sell 1 and 9 of the original 10 get stolen.

(bucko said @ #23)
How did they get to the 90% figure? :wacko:

If anything, it's an estimate at best.

They probably mean to say that 90% of downloaded music is not from a digital music store. But just because it's not from iTunes doesn't mean it's illegal.

At worst, downloading an album I've already paid for is a legal grey area.

Exactly. How could the know? The Software Publisher Association has the same sort of math when it states that $x billion a year is pirated. How can they know? Did they capture 10 people and assume that that was 4%?! You cannot mathmatically estimate an unknown.

That is not to say that the estimate is wrong, it could be more or less... I'm only questioning the math.

Peace,
James Rose
New York City

... and 99% all of digital music must be illegal because the RIAA has reiterated that ripping your own CD collection is illegal as well.

Wait a sec, lemme see this logic again....

The music industry has said that while it has started making money from music downloading, more than 90 percent of downloaded music is illegal.

So they're saying while they are making money from downloads, yet 90% of the download is still illegal? Sounds like they're selling illegal downloads!

Your logic is off. Its says "more than 90 percent of downloaded music is illegal" not "90% of the download is still illegal".

(Magallanes said @ #20)
Oddly funny, 90% of earning per cd goes to other hand but artist.
So even yet, some artist are rich.

That's because they make their money from touring, music videos, sponsorships, merchandising, and raping and pillaging.

I'm not sure how they know how much music downloaded is illegal. How do they account for all illegally downloaded music? How is someone counting it? I hate how people pull statistics out of their ass. Never read a statistic at face value.

Actually, I thought about it and I think this is how it works:

Expected_ Revenue - CD_Revenue - Legal_Download_Revenue = Revenue_Loss_To_Piracy

They just have to explain something to their stockholders.

Unfortunately, the music industry has been known to inflate the impact of music piracy to almost comedic proportions to plead its cause.

One does not plead a cause. One pleads a case or promotes a cause.

So there you have it! Another useful tip from the Grammar Nazi!

+1 ... i always preach that to... cause at the end of the day regardless of whats stolen from a artist music wise... in almost all cases there super rich at the end of the day.. WAY MORE than enough to live a pretty good lifestyle!

cause if people's so called "stealing of music" actually took someone from a fairly rich state to a medium to poor side than that would be a MUCH different story then vs someone who's sick rich to just rich which no one cares about besides MPAA/RIAA etc lol

Which 90% of signed artists are these? Huge numbers of artists have to maintain other jobs to get by, including bands that you would think would be rolling in it. Also, why do people think it's justified to possess something they don't own simply because the artists makes a lot of money for their work? Is it alright to pirate Windows because Bill Gates has too much money? How about a chocolate bar from Wallmart or a burger from McDonalds? They both made loads of money and it would have basically no effect on their huge income.

The fact of the law is that if you can't afford something, or don't want to buy it, you don't have a right to just take it anyway, even if it's a copy and doesn't physically cost anything to get hold of. The RIAA / MPAA may be handling things VERY badly but their function is to get money for the people that have contributed to a piece of work. If an artist is popular then that artist and/or the label should make a lot of money whether you think they are too rich or not. If you don't want people to make too much money then vote socialist for redistribution of wealth through high taxation of the highest earners - if you don't want that then put up and shut up.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #13.2)
Huge numbers of artists have to maintain other jobs to get by...

Obviously their music sucks, therefore they need to find alternative careers.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #13.2)
...why do people think it's justified to possess something they don't own simply because the artists makes a lot of money for their work? Is it alright to pirate Windows because Bill Gates has too much money?

Yes, in my opinion, it is alright to pirate Windows because Bill Gates has amassed a wealth of USD $35 billion. What is he going to do with the majority of this wealth ? Give it back to us -- the poor i.e. charity. Why take it from us to begin with ?

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #13.2)
How about a chocolate bar from Wallmart or a burger from McDonalds? They both made loads of money and it would have basically no effect on their huge income.

Don't compare digital goods to physical goods. Digital goods can be reproduced without any cost.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #13.2)
If you don't want people to make too much money then vote socialist for redistribution of wealth through high taxation of the highest earners - if you don't want that then put up and shut up.

Hell yeah, rape those rich *******! Where do I vote socialist?

oh **** OFF RIAA, please if your a terrorist or know one, get them to bomb the head quarters, make people ****ing happy for once

If they would quit releasing CRAP and calling it music, perhaps more people would buy it.
You spend 12-20 dollars for a CD, 1-2 good songs, the rest are crap.

If it's "crap" they why are people downloading it? Also, I buy plenty of top albums from top artists that cost only £4 with free shipping. All I hear from people like you are excuses to justify downloading music.

Personally I download albums to listen to them and buy on CD the ones that I like. I have bought plenty of albums this way that I wouldn't have otherwise bought. I'm under no illusion that downloading music I don't own is allowed and don't try to delude myself otherwise.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #11.1)
If it's "crap" they why are people downloading it?

To not waste as much money on said crap, but just to get a taste for it and hear if it's anything to have?
Also note that these statistics say nothing about how much of that pirated music is actually kept by the pirates.
Or how much of that music they would spend money on if piracy didn't exist.

Actually, that number is probably not even correct and just an estimate to explain to their shareholders why the music industry (at least the non-digital forms of distribution) is starting to turn into an "epic fail". :-p

I'm a part of it. I use iTunes simply because I'm a psychotic when it comes to correct ID3 tags, so the 99 cent premium to get instant album art and fully complete tags makes me happy.

(CrazyCanuck00 said @ #9.1)
I'm a part of it. I use iTunes simply because I'm a psychotic when it comes to correct ID3 tags, so the 99 cent premium to get instant album art and fully complete tags makes me happy.

You mean like detailed ID3s? I strictly tag mine so the only fields there are: Title, Artist, Album, Track, Year, Genre. Nothing else!!

Give me a break ... 90% ... thats WAY too high .. is RIAA using the
same calculator that the MPAA used ... :P

If music was being stolen that much ... most record companies be out of business ...

I still prefer buying CDs in stores ... and playing them on my stereo

I still own a turntable an play LPs too ... hard to find, but they are making a come back


RIAA ... go back to school an take a few math courses ... you need to learn to add better .. :nuts:

(GenBlood said @ #8)
If music was being stolen that much ... most record companies be out of business ...

I agree, from other reports I've seen, sure the music industry is crippled and has lost maybe a dozen percent or so in revenue the past few years of P2P (which is, yes, quite a bit even at that), but sure not anything near those numbers. In that case, they have to make an absolutely gigantic revenue from live performances, MTV deals, etc. to maintain that revenue, and that kind of revenue additionally need to have increased extremely much the past few years to hide the piracy in their revenue statistics (which do not speak of anything near even 40% losses). Which I somehow doubt... Occam's Razor and all that.

This isn't a 'boast' or anything ridiculous like that...but 99% of my music downloads are illegal (i download free stuff that is completely legal too, and if something is on offer in lossless (flac or wav, i'm happy to pay)), but thats because i, for the most part, only buy CD's, and yes, by that i mean i BUY CD's, not just say i do and download instead.

Also, the vast majority of my downloaded music is stuff i already own, since it's quicker to download a copy of my CD than it is to rip it myself (at the same high standards most 'scene' rips are done at). Also, it means i don't stress my CD through a rip.

Another thing, buying direct from an artist is something i am doing more and more now, so these purchases aren't included in IFPI and RIAA statistics.

Anyway, my morals are intact, i know i'm not ripping artists off, and that is good enough for me, no matter what industry members claim.

+1 .. cause if what you said is true then theres NO WAY they could claim your doing illegal stuff... well the RIAA probably would but there not sane cause there wallet makes them do insane things like claim people who rip cd's (that they own) into mp3 format is stealing lol

If their sales were hurting as much as they say they are, they would be out of business by now. Yet, there they are, putting out more wanna-be-music than ever.
I say, they're still not losing enough money. They need to lose more.

+1 ;)

cause if they continue this suing crap, it gives people even more reason to be a part of that "90 percent" lol. and lets face it, vast majority of music aint worth "buying" anyways... some is, but not much.

(cork1958 said @ #3)
Cool. Nice to know they're making money again, but still not happy, huh?

They never stopped making money. But I don't advocate piracy. It is your obligation to pay for a product if you can afford it. If you can't... well, if you've got a fast ship and a good crew, you can become king of the seas!

(I admit, I once pirated that album. I did pay $30 to see them live, so I figure it's a fair trade?)

And in those that you can many people choose not to. I refuse to buy music online because the quality is worse and you have less flexibility. With CDs I get better quality, artwork, a disc I can play in cars, stereos, computers, etc - not only that but they're often cheaper!

I prefer to have a physical product.