Also, it helps if they can’t steal it.

That’s the takeaway from a new survey from the IFPI, the music industry’s global trade group. It says global digital music sales grew 8 percent last year; that’s the first time that growth rate has increased since 2004, when the IFPI started tracking the statistic.

A good chunk of that increase may have come from subscription music services like Spotify and Deezer. The IFPI says subscription services have 13 million paying users, up from eight million last year.* There are also smaller increases in sales at more conventional outlets like Apple and Amazon, which generate much more revenue for the industry overall.

And while digital music sales still make up a minority of the music industry’s revenue worldwide, they are increasingly important: They now account for 32 percent of sales, up from 29 percent last year. (In the U.S., digital just edged physical last year, for the first time.)

All of which sounds fairly straightforward. But the IFPI is a trade group; it wants to hammer at one of its key points, which is that piracy is a big problem for the industry, which has seen sales cut in half since the Napster era. It figures more than a quarter of all Web users “access unauthorized services on a monthly basis.”

So, if piracy is a problem, why are sales increasing? In part, the trade group argues, because of anti-piracy legislation and industry moves.

The report highlights France’s “three strikes” rule, which allows the government to fine pirates and take away their Internet access. It cites a study arguing that French iTunes sales have increased more than 20 percent because of the policy, and the suggestion is clear: This would be a good idea worldwide.

The IFPI, which has singled out Google for criticism in the past, once again complains that the search engine makes it too easy to find illegal stuff. It also clearly went to the printer before the weekend, because its report refers to SOPA/PIPA as works in progress that are “set to be debated further in early 2012.”

*That number sounds several million high to me, but perhaps my rough estimate is missing a couple of big players.

When the dust finally settles between the artists, labels, and distribution companies, everyone will finally realize fans are more valuable than recorded music. As traditional monetization models for recorded music sales slowly fade away, new monetization methods centered on the fan will emerge.

How do we know music will become free? The stats point to this trajectory. Total revenues for CDs, vinyl, cassettes, and digital downloads worldwide dropped 25 percent from $38.6 billion in 1999 to $27.5 billion in 2008, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). The same revenues in the U.S. dropped from a high of $14.6 billion in 1999 to $10.4 billion in 2008.

As the stats show, sales of recorded music are headed one way — down. Sure, digital music sales have been on the rise in recent years, but they have only partially replaced physical sales, so the overall sales figures are still headed south. And it surely isn’t because people are listening to less music. It’s simply because the old adage holds true: why pay for something that you can get for free? In addition, artists, the ones with the talent, aren’t making money off digital sales. Artists get about $0.09 per song sold digitally on iTunes or Amazon. So for a million downloaded hits, an artist earns $90K. Subtract manager, lawyer, agent and other “fees”, and an artist selling one million downloads would barely make minimum wage off of the recording.

Source: CNN, Forrester

Already, there is a deluge of great (and legal!) sites providing free music — including Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, Grooveshark, MOG, Rdio, and other online destinations. This is a big change from the early days of online music, when free meant illegal. Today, music start-ups have caught on to the profit potential in “giving it away.” Companies like Pandora, which generated $67M of revenue in 2011 Q2, and Spotify with over two million paying users, don’t charge for entry-level service. Instead, these music innovators found a way to monetize music indirectly through advertising and other means. Music still comes at great cost — start-ups still pay high licensing fees to labels — but as the economics shift, licensing fees are likely to decline. (Yes, labels will do a lot of kicking and screaming.)

So how will labels offset the decline in recorded music revenue? How will artists capture more value for their creative work? The clear answer is from their fans. Musicians have really never engaged their fans, maybe every three years while they were on tour, but otherwise they just released albums and expected fans to buy them. Myspace was the first experiment with direct musician-fan engagement, and it started a trend that has continued. Now, over 300,000 musicians have BandPages on Facebook. Just about every musician has a Web site, e-commerce site, and a web strategy. Many are putting their music “out there” for discovery and promotion before it’s ever part of an album. Soundcloud has seven million users who upload their music and recordings, for example. YouTube’s most popular videos are music-related. Bands, managers, and labels understand this trend and are finding new and innovative means to monetize fans.

We anticipate a lot of “creative destruction” and changes to the value model based on fan-driven music marketing models. There are ways to make money from the music experience, and those channels — new and old, low- and high-tech — are creating opportunities for artists, labels, and music start-ups.

Here are some of the ways the music industry will make money going forward.

• Live Music
  While recorded music sales continue to decline, live music revenue has increased in the past few years. The industry has been following this trend closely and focusing more and more on live tours and events. There really isn’t a way to replicate or pirate the live experience. As cellist Zoe Keating joked about piracy at the recent SFMusicTech conference: “Go ahead, try copying me! Just try!”


Source: CNN, Forrester as above

• Patronage
  In the Elizabethan era, artists were supported by wealthy patrons; we’re headed back toward that world. Two models are possible here, and will probably coexist as supplements to the live music monetization. The first is corporate sponsorship, which is already used widely. Take the OK GO music video “This Too Shall Pass,” in which the band discreetly thanks State Farm for making it possible, or the somewhat distasteful product placements ($500K worth) in Britney Spears’s “Hold it Against Me” video. The Black Eyed Peas have become so intertwined with brands that The Wall Street Journal dubbed them the “Most Corporate Band.”

  The other sponsorship model is direct fundraising from fans – also known as crowdsourcing. In 2007, Radiohead released its album “In Rainbows” for free, asking fans to pay as much or little as they pleased. And more recently, Nataly Dawn from Pomplamoose used a Kickstarter campaign to fund her forthcoming solo album. She set out to raise $20,000 but fans overfunded her project by $104,788. This may not seem like a huge sum, but crowdsourcing will make all the difference for indie artists worrying how to pay their rent.

• Curation, Discovery and Network effect
  MP3 players were around for years before the iPod took them from the technophiles to the masses. Likewise, music services spread when they are easy to use and approachable. Pandora has managed to attract tens of millions of users to its radio service because of the KISS principal (keep it simple, stupid). While this sounds easy, it took them years to develop the music genome and “taste” algorithms that analyze billions of thumbs up/down votes to offer effortless music curation.

  Upstart Spotify made access and friends the top priority for its music service, and has unseated Rhapsody as the top dog in on-demand listening. Others like Turntable let listeners do the heavy lifting — letting anyone be a DJ and mix tracks via a competitive, social, cartoony environment. And still others, such as the Hype Machine, rely on the old-school expertise of hardcore music junkies, letting bloggers curate their own selections. The ad-supported model is all about building audiences, and it’s an ongoing cat-and-mouse game where new methods continue to emerge.

• Whales
  One dirty little secret in the free-to-play online gaming world is that “whales” — to use a Las Vegas term for big spenders — often account for a significant portion of the revenue. In many examples in the free-to-play world, the top 10 percent often contribute 50 percent or more of the revenue for virtual goods, game play, tokens, premium versions and more. In one recent example, one happy gamer spent more than $76K on a single social game buying the accessories he needed to build his fortress. Would “whale” fans of Arcade Fire spend tens of thousands of dollars to sit in on a studio recording session? Yes, and I’m offering!

  And beneath the mega-whales, there is a larger base of dedicated fans willing to pay to be a part of the experience, even if they don’t have thousands to spend. “Baby whales” mostly tend to buy merchandise: T-shirts, caps, branded toys, etc. These baby whales are still a small share of any overall fan base, but collectively, an extra $50 each from a small percentage of fans can really add up.

• Unique Experiences
  People love to engage with unique experiences — things you just can’t replicate — and will often pay top dollar for them. Concerts are one kind of unique music experience, but there are others. Nataly Dawn’s Kickstarter campaign offered big donors rewards, like their choice of a song for her to cover, early prerelease access to her album, and even a private in-house concert. In addition, there are now countless apps that let you be a part of the music, from the T-Pain auto tune app to ShapeMix’s tool that lets you remix songs yourself with isolated melody/bass/drums/vocal stems and post those to your friends. While, selling these extra experiences may not be a major monetization method, such methods do allow indie artists to generate income, and top artists to experiment with new avenues to engage and grow their fan bases.
• The Bottom Line
  Music is getting closer and closer to free. Distribution is becoming commoditized, so monetization must change. To this end, artists will have to pull out the stops to engage with fans more directly, and actively seek out fans and benefactors willing to pay more than usual for their work. The music startups that will make money over the long term are those that will connect artists with fans, help people filter and discover new music they love, and offer unique experiences. People will never stop listening to music — they’ll just change how they find it, hear it, and pay for it.

Hany Nada is a founding partner of GGV Capital (www.ggvc.com), a $1B venture capital firm with a dual focus on China and the U.S. Some of GGV’s investments include Alibaba Group, Pandora Media, YY, RootMusic, Buddy Media, Tudou, SuccessFactors, Square, and 21ViaNet.

The key thing to look at here isn’t the decline of physical sales (the yellow bars), which have been plummeting since the Napster era, but the petering out of digital sales (the grey bars), which were supposed to bail out the business.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which produced the chart above (via PaidContent), says that digital sales grew a mere 5.1 percent last year and that in the U.S., growth was nearly flat at 1.2 percent.

Again, not a surprise–the labels and other groups were reporting slowing sales throughout last year. But it’s always bracing to see it in graphic form.

The IFPI chart also shows why the labels are both pining for new digital players to show up and wary about what happens if they’re truly successful.

Because if, say, Spotify does shows up in the U.S. and becomes very popular, then CD sales–which still make up the majority of the industry’s sales–could plummet even faster.

It’s also one of the reasons that the industry is interested in the “locker” concepts that both Google and Apple (and, reportedly, Amazon) are talking about: Those models give consumers more access to the music they purchase from the labels. Which is nice. But they’re still premised on consumers buying music from the labels, a track at a time.

I’m not sure how that pushes the digital sales curve up again. But at this rate, maybe just keeping it flat would be a victory.

You can read a confusing release from the supposed acquirer, Global Gaming Factory X, here, and an equally confusing post from The Pirate Bay’s operators, here. And The Pirate Bay guys, who are supposedly looking at a big fine and a jail term, say they didn’t actually own The Pirate Bay but will get some of the profits from the sale anyway and will use them to finance an “Internet project.” Etc.

Oh! And the Pirate Bay’s new owners say they can’t promise that copyright holders are actually going to get paid. Here’s Global Gaming CEO Hans Pandeya in the Financial Times:

However, Mr Pandeya said the company would not be able to compel any filesharers to pay content owners. “We are trying to create a different model that addresses the needs of the different parties. However, it is up to them if they want to participate,” he said.

So it’s understandable that Hollywood and big music are mute, or close to it, on the deal. Because it’s difficult to say exactly what the deal is. I was able to extract one statement from the IFPI, the international music trade group. Here’s chairman and CEO John Kennedy:

“We don’t know the details and there are many questions to ask about how this will work in practice, but we would be delighted if this resulted in the Pirate Bay turning into a legitimate licensed service.”

But let’s be honest: There’s no way The Pirate Bay is going legit. And if it does, it won’t be The Pirate Bay, but something else.

Instead of being a massive site that attracts a huge audience that wants to devour free content, it will be a small distributor of licensed content, and the masses will flock somewhere else for their free stuff. Because they don’t want licensed content, even if it’s legal and/or better quality. They want free stuff.

The movie studios and the labels should be able to pat themselves on the back, gently and cautiously, for getting The Pirate Bay’s current owners to more or less abandon the site.

The problem, as they’re well aware, is that The Pirate Bay was only a directory that sent users to “torrents” that allowed them to gobble up as much pirated stuff as they want. And shutting down the Bay doesn’t mean the torrents are gone. And it doesn’t prevent other directory sites from popping up, whack-a-mole style, all over the world.

In a hastily released statement, the IFPI downplayed the abrupt change of tack, claiming the amended charges will simplify its case. Said IFPI counsel Peter Danowsky, “It’s a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works.”

The Pirate Bay had a different take on the matter though. Said co-founder Peter Sunde in a Twitter message: EPIC WINNING LOL.

In a hastily released statement, the IFPI downplayed the abrupt change of tack, claiming the amended charges will simplify its case. Said IFPI counsel Peter Danowsky, “It’s a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works.”

The Pirate Bay had a different take on the matter though. Said co-founder Peter Sunde in a Twitter message: EPIC WINNING LOL.

The IFPI estimates that some 40 billion tracks were stolen/shared last year, though it’s not entirely clear how the group came up with the math. Regardless of the methodology, that’s bad, right?

Depends on how you look at it. The IFPI also notes that people spent some $3.7 billion on digital music in 2008, which is up about 25 percent. Figure about half of that comes from Apple (AAPL), which moves about two billion tracks a year from its iTunes store. The remainder would be from mobile, with a very small smattering from services like RealNetworks’ (RNWK) Rhapsody and a few dollars spent on ad-supported services like News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace Music, etc. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and of this Web site.)

But the standard summation still applies: The growth of digital has yet to replace the decline in physical sales–overall music sales dropped seven percent last year.

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s 2008 Digital Music Report (PDF), global digital music sales rose to $2.9 billion in 2007, up from $2.1 billion in 2006.

Now that 40% increase isn’t nearly the doubling of digital sales we saw in 2006, but it’s not insubstantial, either. Especially when one considers that digital sales grew to account for 15% of the world’s music market, up from 10% in 2006. That means that almost a sixth of music sales already come through digital channels. This despite five or so years of the recording industry’s Keystone Kops approach to the digital music revolution.

All things considered, things aren’t going too poorly–even if the growth of digital music sales hasn’t yet offset declines in physical music. That being the case, it’s difficult not to look askance at the IFPI’s calls for governments and Internet service providers to take a hard line against file-sharing.

“Copyright theft has been allowed to run rampant on [ISP] networks under the guise of technological advancement,” IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy wrote in the report. “Some estimates say no less than 80% of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.”–80%? Does the IFPI suffer from the same math disability as the MPAA?–”ISPs have largely stood by, allowing a massive devaluation of copyrighted music. This in turn–and despite all the positives about our digital growth–has prompted a crisis in recorded music that has wide implications for the whole digital marketplace and all those businesses to whom music is an important ingredient. … Today, however, a sea-change is happening. The whole music sector, governments and even some ISPs themselves, are beginning to accept that the carriers of digital content must play a responsible role in curbing the systemic piracy that is threatening the future of all digital commerce. After years of discussing and debating, I am convinced it is no longer a question of whether the ISPs act–the question is when and how.”

And the answer? Five bucks and a copy of the latest Britney Spears album says it’s network-level filtering.

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s 2008 Digital Music Report (PDF), global digital music sales rose to $2.9 billion in 2007, up from $2.1 billion in 2006.

Now that 40% increase isn’t nearly the doubling of digital sales we saw in 2006, but it’s not insubstantial, either. Especially when one considers that digital sales grew to account for 15% of the world’s music market, up from 10% in 2006. That means that almost a sixth of music sales already come through digital channels. This despite five or so years of the recording industry’s Keystone Kops approach to the digital music revolution.

All things considered, things aren’t going too poorly–even if the growth of digital music sales hasn’t yet offset declines in physical music. That being the case, it’s difficult not to look askance at the IFPI’s calls for governments and Internet service providers to take a hard line against file-sharing.

“Copyright theft has been allowed to run rampant on [ISP] networks under the guise of technological advancement,” IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy wrote in the report. “Some estimates say no less than 80% of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.”–80%? Does the IFPI suffer from the same math disability as the MPAA?–”ISPs have largely stood by, allowing a massive devaluation of copyrighted music. This in turn–and despite all the positives about our digital growth–has prompted a crisis in recorded music that has wide implications for the whole digital marketplace and all those businesses to whom music is an important ingredient. … Today, however, a sea-change is happening. The whole music sector, governments and even some ISPs themselves, are beginning to accept that the carriers of digital content must play a responsible role in curbing the systemic piracy that is threatening the future of all digital commerce. After years of discussing and debating, I am convinced it is no longer a question of whether the ISPs act–the question is when and how.”

And the answer? Five bucks and a copy of the latest Britney Spears album says it’s network-level filtering.