Why do people still pay for music

Scroll to see replies

There's plenty of academic reports to back up this view though.

Blackburn (2004) finds 75% of artists profit directly from piracy

Pedersen (2006) looking at Danish music market also finds this relationship

Peitz and Waelbroeck (2006)

Just google scholar it

Don't misunderstand me, if it can be proven that paying nothing for something is good for the provider then I'm interested.

It rather flies in the face of most economic thinking, but it would be wrong for me to be not open-minded.

Reply 41

Genocidal

Nope, never pay for it. I don't even listen to albums either to be honest. I just listen to songs direct from YouTube.

Reply 42

nohomo

Original post by Autistic Merit

To quote OP:

"If you think about that, someone may have a 2000 song library on their phone so would have "wasted" around £2000 that could have been used for something better like paying their bills.

I would like to know who and why you pay for your music if you do so"

That £2000 would be better spent elsewhere, no?

That could be said about any service really. Take a dentist. Why not pay them minimum wage and donate the rest to charity? Just because it's harder to do that on a personal level without government intervention? Unless we got the government to give everyone minimum wage as a basic right, and nothing more, I don't see how what you're suggesting is fair.

If a dentist is paid because they add value to people's lives, so should a musician.

Reply 43

ttankzhang

Original post by just a dad

I don't think it flies in the face of economic thinking at all! I don't know if you have an economic background but I'm currently an econ student which is why I'm interested in this topic. A lot of this is behavioural economics which I don't look into too much, but a lot of these studies are interesting to read.

The piracy just acts as a leading mechanism for consumers to try before they buy and as a facilitator to different money-making methods (such as gigs and selling t shirts etc.) - since record companies take up so much money from selling CDs (from the study, not my opinion).

Obviously there are record sales shortages, its just looking at which is more significant, and for most artists its the former.

Reply 44

Last Day Lepers

Original post by just a dad

Look who lost the argument.
Anyway, I don't know where it's been.

Lost what argument? I made an opinion of which wasn't directed at you. You then stuck your nose in it saying you want proof, then made some crap statement about my wording. Which wasn't wrong because when I say 'probably' it is already implied that it's my opinion given the context of the thread.

There was no debate here.

Reply 45

just a dad

Original post by ttankzhang

FYI I did Economics alongside my Maths degree.

TBH, I'm more interested in the self-justification of people who have decided that media theft isn't a crime than I am anything else. However I am prepared to accept that I am in the 'moral minority' on this one.

Reply 46

just a dad

Original post by Last Day Lepers

It's not my fault that you don't know how to debate, and it certainly wasn't me that introduced your arse into the conversation.

You should calm down.

Reply 47

ttankzhang

Original post by just a dad

Ah ok, which uni?

And yeah, no I don't care about that

Reply 48

miser

Original post by just a dad

Out of interest, what would happen to the music industry if everyone was able to consume it for free?

Artists' main revenue streams are from live performance. The people who profit from record sales are mostly the publishers.

Reply 49

just a dad

Original post by ttankzhang

Ah ok, which uni?

And yeah, no I don't care about that

Bristol.

Reply 50

MrSupernova

Original post by just a dad

Talk me through how that works.

No-one pays anything for music, yet the artist is still able to run "3 private jets" in "semi-luxury".

Clearly I am missing something.

Tours

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 51

just a dad

Original post by miser

Artists' main revenue streams are from live performance. The people who profit from record sales are mostly the publishers.

All artists or just established?

Reply 52

ttankzhang

Original post by just a dad

Bristol.

oh ok lol

Reply 53

Last Day Lepers

Original post by just a dad

It's not my fault that you don't know how to debate, and it certainly wasn't me that introduced your arse into the conversation.

You should calm down.

This comment is ironic.

Reply 54

MrSupernova

Original post by RumpeIstiltskin

So theft is ok if the person you steal from is rich?

It isn't quite the same as "theft" in the real world though - data isn't a finite resource like, say, a CD is

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 55

miser

Original post by just a dad

All artists or just established?

I expect it holds for all signed artists that are doing live performance. The ones who aren't established are effectively shafted since they need to prove themselves to a publisher and not to the consumers.

Reply 56

Runninground

Last time I paid for music must have been years ago. It all changed when I discovered a YouTube video downloader haha.

Day to day, I listen to music on Spotify (free version). Just what I need- I can use it anywhere in the UK with the internet on my phone (which is unlimited) and I can add and remove things from a playlist. Once I get a new car with an AUX port (or similar) then I would use it in the car, however I still like the radio as you hear new songs more.

If I am going away where I won't have my phone with internet (eg: abroad), then I just download a load from YouTube (albeit not great quality). I don't see why I would pay £1 for a song which I will probably listen to a few times then be bored with it.

As far as I am concerned, artists earn their money from many other sources and by selling records probably isn't the money spinner. Plus they earn much more than me for much less effort :wink:

To be honest I don't even see why they sell music anymore. It should just be given away for free (as it pretty much is anyway). Songs should be used as marketing material for getting people to go to concerts where the real money is.

Reply 57

Jordooooom

Just a dad seems like a morally upright dick.

We download for free because can.

I'll stream movies because I can.

At the end of the day, it isn't the most heinous crime

Reply 58

ClickItBack

Original post by just a dad

Wow, and now we're trying to justify theft from artists trying to establish themselves.

I'm sure that if the artists were happy to give their art away for free ... they would give it away for free.

It doesn't always require theft to get free music, though I'm sure that accounts for a large percentage of the source of such.

With all the different ways of listening to music these days e.g. Spotify, Youtube, etc - the music industry has a lot of perfectly legitimate venues to compete with. Sure, they make some revenue from ads and stuff in the above, but hardly as much as the typical £8/album from direct retail/download.

The other problem for the industry is that pirating is just too easy. Even if filesharing is completely shut down (not that that's possible), anyone can just turn a sound recorder on and capture a Youtube video. This doesn't justify the action of doing so, of course, but it is a practical issue that is near impossible to police and that the music industry has to find some way to reckon with. In practice, it's possible this means that music prices will continue to go down until they reach the sweet spot where the inconvenience of pirating outweighs the slight financial saving.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 59

K_o_46

Original post by just a dad

Talk me through how that works.

No-one pays anything for music, yet the artist is still able to run "3 private jets" in "semi-luxury".

Clearly I am missing something.

The fact is that most artists make most of their money from things like concerts, endorsements and sponsorships with a minor amount from record sales. Therefore no record sales will not bankrupt the artist but just slightly decrease their revenue