QueenZone discussion #1226356
New Law Means Illegal Downloaders Face Life Internet Ban
| Mr Mercury 08.04.2010 12:35 |
Digital economy bill becomes law http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/news/article/digital-economy-bill-becomes-law/19708901 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100408/tuk-illegal-downloaders-face-life-intern-45dbed5.html |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 08.04.2010 13:17 |
crikey,there's hardly anyone on this site these days as it is without the last few dodgy pirates [not me,good pirate like Mr Depp] being switched off at the mains :-p |
| Winter Land Man 08.04.2010 20:08 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Digital economy bill becomes law http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/news/article/digital-economy-bill-becomes-law/19708901 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100408/tuk-illegal-downloaders-face-life-intern-45dbed5.html Good. People should buy the physical albums and singles, anyways. |
| The Real Wizard 09.04.2010 01:10 |
Blue Roses Unlimited wrote: Good. People should buy the physical albums and singles, anyways. Why, to support the bean-counters at record labels? The artists see very little of that money, you know. Even if they did, how is downloading an album any different from borrowing a book from the library? |
| john bodega 09.04.2010 01:36 |
I love a good bit of illegal downloading. The thing is, when money comes my way, I also love buying physical product. Not because of morality, but practicality - hard drives are unreliable, burnt media are unreliable. If I take care of pressed CDs or DVDs, they'll last longer. I'm old fashioned for it, but I am a fan of buying things. |
| The Real Wizard 09.04.2010 11:35 |
Zebonka12 wrote: burnt media are unreliable Not if they're made in Japan.. :-) |
| Saint Jiub 10.04.2010 17:22 |
Sir GH wrote:Blue Roses Unlimited wrote: Good. People should buy the physical albums and singles, anyways.Why, to support the bean-counters at record labels? The artists see very little of that money, you know. Even if they did, how is downloading an album any different from borrowing a book from the library? The book is returned to the library. The downloaded music is not returned and usually not deleted. It is a pity that attitudes have deteiorated to a third world level, and intellectual property rights are no longer respected. |
| Mr Mercury 11.04.2010 18:41 |
Now now Mooghead - that is still theft.... :) |
| The Real Wizard 11.04.2010 23:47 |
Panchgani wrote: Sir GH wrote: Even if they did, how is downloading an album any different from borrowing a book from the library? The book is returned to the library. The downloaded music is not returned and usually not deleted. It is a pity that attitudes have deteiorated to a third world level, and intellectual property rights are no longer respected. The average artist with a major label deal makes about $2 from each record sale. The store makes a few bucks, and the label pockets the rest. This has nothing to do with intellectual property. People have recorded songs off the radio to cassettes for years. This is just the next step. Those who seek new music have never had a greater variety of music to select from. Downloading music is the best way for new artists to gain popularity. Then you go to the concert and buy the merchandise. The artist makes much more money that way. Without downloading, plenty of artists would never be heard. It's time to move into the 21st century. If record labels are losing money, it's their own fault because of their outdated business plans. A substantial portion of the population does not want to pay $20 for a CD. With their last album, Radiohead has set the standard for how to release music - pay what you think the music is worth. It still made millions. |
| The Real Wizard 11.04.2010 23:48 |
(double post) The forum is really acting up these days.. |
| pittrek 12.04.2010 03:25 |
test |
| Micrówave 12.04.2010 04:04 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: crikey,there's hardly anyone on this site these days as it is without the last few dodgy pirates [not me,good pirate like Mr Depp] being switched off at the mains :-p Yeah, I've been having a tough time getting around this Lifetime Internet Ban. But I stole a bunch of laptops from an underprivlidged school for handicapped children, and I'm back. Anybody want some free songs? |
| David Jones 15.04.2010 12:57 |
Sir GH wrote: Even if they did, how is downloading an album any different from borrowing a book from the library? The book is returned to the library. The downloaded music is not returned and usually not deleted. It is a pity that attitudes have deteiorated to a third world level, and intellectual property rights are no longer respected. The average artist with a major label deal makes about $2 from each record sale. The store makes a few bucks, and the label pockets the rest. This has nothing to do with intellectual property. People have recorded songs off the radio to cassettes for years. This is just the next step. Those who seek new music have never had a greater variety of music to select from. Downloading music is the best way for new artists to gain popularity. Then you go to the concert and buy the merchandise. The artist makes much more money that way. Without downloading, plenty of artists would never be heard. It's time to move into the 21st century. If record labels are losing money, it's their own fault because of their outdated business plans. A substantial portion of the population does not want to pay $20 for a CD. With their last album, Radiohead has set the standard for how to release music - pay what you think the music is worth. It still made millions. Here here! I think some people are being driven to illegal downloading because of the record labels - releasing an album, then re-releasing at the end of the tour with bonus tracks/DVDs, bands re-releasing old albums with maybe one or two new songs/demos, better sounding versions being released overseas etc. It's so easy for the record labels to blame their poor results on illegal downloads and its not all of the problem. People are saying Spotify is the way forward, but what's to stop you recording off Spotify straight onto your hard drive? |
| Raf 21.04.2010 10:27 |
I wouldn't buy most (if not ALL) albums I've downloaded. I usually don't have lots of spare money, and when I do, I have other priorities - so, they definitely didn't waste the chance of earning my money as I downloaded their albums. --- I've never bought any Franz Ferdinand album in my life. I got to know them when a friend sent me a few songs, and then I downloaded their albums for free. After a while, their third album came out, I downloaded it and a folder full of b-sides and other "rare" tracks. I didn't pay anything at all for their music. Then they came to Brazil and I paid for a ticket probably more than they would've made if I had bought their 3 albums. |
| YourValentine 22.04.2010 02:48 |
It's amazing how the music industry keeps telling us how they lose so much money to downloading when in fact they sell more than ever before: link It's obvious that people download music illegally because it's easy to do and the record companies protect their interests by offering legal downloads - which is the best way to do imo. For years they persecuted services like Napster or emule but over the time they learnt that it's better to provide an alternative to the illegal downloads. Like any other business it's the job of the industry to come up with up-to-date sales methods and not to run to the legislation and ask for censorship and special laws to protect their interests. As a customer and a citizen I am appalled by such laws which serve to establish censorship tools rather than to stop the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. The worst thing about the above quoted article is that MPs complain they had no time to actually debate the law in Parliament. They should not have let the law pass - it's only the MPs themselves who can protect their independence and not become servants to the industry against their own people. |
| The Real Wizard 22.04.2010 13:08 |
YourValentine wrote: "It's amazing how the music industry keeps telling us how they lose so much money to downloading when in fact they sell more than ever before" Indeed. And here's another link showing how sales are up in Canada too. CD sales are down, but digital sales and vinyl sales are up. Excellent article overall about "record store day" !! link |
| thunderbolt 31742 23.04.2010 23:16 |
I'll chime in here. I have never paid for a Green Day album in my life (although I did buy a few American Idiot singles on iTunes back in the day). I have never paid for a Muse album in my life. That said, I just received my two tickets to a Green Day concert this summer. Each (bargain-priced) ticket cost more than an album, and the percentage of that money the artist sees is significantly higher. Not to mention that my wife and I always, always buy the overpriced t-shirts at concerts. We spent $70 for two Q+PR shirts and another $70 for two Nine Inch Nails "Wave Goodbye" shirts. I don't doubt we'll spend $70 on two Green Day shirts, but I'm such a fan of Green Day that I'll probably drop even more on other merchandise there. The band keeps virtually all of that money. Tomorrow morning, Muse tickets go on sale. Am I buying two tickets to the Muse concert? Hellz yes. And I'm not going $20 lawn tickets there--we're going to be as close to the stage as is humanly possible for Muse. Each ticket will probably cost more than three albums. When there, we're probably going to drop in excess of $150 on multiple t-shirts and other merchandise, because my wife and I agree that Muse is the best band out there right now. Now, if it weren't for illegal downloading, would I be going to either of these concerts? Green Day, who knows? They've been getting radio airplay for years; I've just never gotten around to seeing them live. I probably would have eventually anyway. Muse? Definitely not. I'd probably never have heard of them if not for BitTorrent. So, you tell me. Who does illegal downloading hurt? Does it hurt the artists by exposing them to fans who will go spend money at their concerts by taking a few tenths of a cent per album sold out of their pockets? No, not really. It hurts the recording company executives, who take home 75-plus cents of every dollar earned on record sales, which is why the high-powered lawyers are all over it. |
| YourValentine 24.04.2010 07:55 |
Of course illegal downloads hurt the artists! If we all acted like you there would not be any Muse or Green Day albums for you to grab for free. Before any artists can sell out a concert they must release their music to get a name. If we all stole albums there would not be any incentive for the business to release anything. Not to mention to give a promising artist a second chance when the first album does not hit the charts. Of course the artists try to make up for album sales by selling high priced concert tickets and merchandise but the merchandise won't give a single new artist a chance to try out something new. I am not in favour of illegal downloads, I am just against legislation making special laws which allow them to censor website content under the pretense of protecting the music industry when in fact the music industry took years to understand the risks and chances of the internet and did not create new sales outlets. |
| The Real Wizard 24.04.2010 12:39 |
YourValentine wrote: "Of course illegal downloads hurt the artists! If we all acted like you there would not be any Muse or Green Day albums for you to grab for free. Before any artists can sell out a concert they must release their music to get a name. If we all stole albums there would not be any incentive for the business to release anything." And what would be wrong with that? In these days of myspace and satellite radio, you don't need a record deal to make yourself known. If all the major record labels imploded, music wouldn't die with them. The only people who would lose out would be the bean-counting executives. The percentage of people finding music aside from mainstream radio is growing by the day. If you're an artist signed to a major label, you get pennies of every record sale - not even a dollar. The label used to be able to blackmail the artist like this, saying how they get exposure in exchange for not seeing the record sale revenue. But nowadays, there are many more ways to market and gain notoriety. If the major labels refuse to change their business plan, it will eventually be their demise. The majority of people will see the light. |
| aion 24.04.2010 12:46 |
People who blame the record companies for illegal downloading are just looking for some nice way to get rid of the responsibility. But people don't download because the record companies are evil, they download because the Internet has made stealing so easy. Blaming "greedy" record companies, too high CD prices etc. is just a stupid excuse. It is an odd situation how these days the average folks seem to be deciding on behalf of the artists what is good for them. They say "oh, but the artist only gets 2 dollars of that CD, the evil record company gets the rest" and so on but it is not our job to decide whether that situation is good for the artists. The artists decide that themselves, and they do not want their albums to be stolen; they are quite happy with the work that record companies do and many musicians have become millionaires because people bought their albums. People also say how bands find new audience when people download, how the musicians benefit from the easy exposure, but they don't realise that those bands wouldn't even exist if everybody downloaded and there was no record companies. When you download you are essentially shooting yourself in the leg because there is less chance of good new bands coming up in the future. If you can't make a living by being a musician you won't be making music and there will be no new Muse or Green Day or whoever. Yes they make money now by touring too, but you can't sell out tours if you aren't already a quite famous band. And by the way concerts wouldn't cost so goddamn much these days if the bands didn't need to get that extra buck with touring that they lose when people steal the album. Radiohead was able to give away their album for free and still make money from it because they were already a very famous and rich band and the album was highly anticipated. That situation does not apply for new or less well-known bands and it is not a stragedy that can work on a larger scale. There's really no rational way to defend illegal downloading. Or would you want to do your work for free? Downloaders probably aren't interested in going to work every day and not get any paycheck, so why should that be the case for musicians. There was nothing wrong with the old situation where you saved up some money, went to a store and proudly bought a new record. Then everybody got what they wanted and it was fair. Now it's different and people blame record companies just because stealing has become too easy and they don't want to pay. |
| Gregsynth 24.04.2010 13:04 |
Well, being that CD prices are so high, I'm not surprised people download the stuff! |
| The Real Wizard 24.04.2010 13:05 |
aion wrote: "People also say how bands find new audience when people download, how the musicians benefit from the easy exposure, but they don't realise that those bands wouldn't even exist if everybody downloaded and there was no record companies." So music didn't exist before record companies? "And by the way concerts wouldn't cost so goddamn much these days if the bands didn't need to get that extra buck with touring that they lose when people steal the album." Let's do some math here. Let's be generous and say the band makes 1 dollar per record sold. That's being incredibly generous, as it's usually much less than that when you're with a major label. If you sell 50,000 records, that's 50 grand in the pocket. Assuming you're a 5-piece band and you put out one record per year, who can live off 10 grand these days? This is why musicians tour. Again, picking easy numbers, let's say you play 50 gigs a year and play the venues that hold 1,000 people, charging 20 bucks a pop, that's a million bucks of revenue. That's 20x the money you're making on record sales (minus all your expenses, of course). But... ...most artists aren't on major labels. They're with indie labels that give the artist much more on each record sale... say $5. So let's say 3/4 of their 50,000 fans download the record. That's 12,500 record sales, and the band pockets 62,500. And a fair portion of the 37,500 fans who downloaded the album for free (who probably wouldn't have otherwise heard of the band if it weren't for the internet) will come to their shows and provide the band with far more revenue on ticket sales and merchandise than record sales ever could, even on an indie label. "Now it's different and people blame record companies just because stealing has become too easy and they don't want to pay." The record costs 15 dollars, and the big concert costs $100-1000, plus merchandise. It definitely isn't an issue of not wanting to cough up the coin, my friend. One of the articles says, "proponents say the measure will save jobs," which is absolute hogwash. It will save a few record company executives' jobs, and will slightly help the best-selling artists who don't need the money to begin with. But it won't really hurt the smaller artists in the end, because myspace isn't being shut down. Anyone in favour of this kind of measure clearly doesn't understand how the internet and satellite radio are such incredible marketing tools. Music existed long before record companies, and it will exist after record companies, too. |
| aion 24.04.2010 15:49 |
>>So music didn't exist before record companies?>> Sure music existed, but we've had record companies as long as we've had rock'n'roll and people listening to music in a home environment. A few decades ago it was simply impossible for a band to record and release an album and become famous without a record company; now it's easier to record stuff and especially release on your own, but if you want to be a household name you still need a record company. The math is unnecessary because like I said it's not our right to decide on behalf of the artists what is good for them. Artists are on the labels voluntarily, they choose to be there, and I don't see any of them leaving all record companies behind and then releasing their music for free on the internet because they would supposedly benefit from it. Artists themselves do not want their albums to be stolen, and the idea of horrible record companies was invented by the pirates as an excuse for the theft. Musicians don't promote that idea and quite to the contrary they seek to be on a record label. >>The record costs 15 dollars, and the big concert costs $100-1000, plus merchandise. It definitely isn't an issue of not wanting to cough up the coin, my friend.>> The only difference is that you can't steal a concert ticket like you can download an MP3 file. If the same people could download concert tickets and T-shirts for free on the web they sure as hell wouldn't be paying for them. >>But it won't really hurt the smaller artists in the end, because myspace isn't being shut down. Anyone in favour of this kind of measure clearly doesn't understand how myspace and satellite radio are such incredible marketing tools.>> You're overrating the power of myspace. There's nothing wrong with myspace, and it can help to start a career like with Arctic Monkeys, but they too preferred to be on a label instead of having their career on a website. |
| ILoveQueen20 24.04.2010 16:09 |
I'm so confused with this. So If people download music illegally they could get an internet ban? (IMO I think a few songs are ok but if its 100's then thats bad.Besides its much better to buy a C.D or itunes ect.) But should'nt that also apply to youtube & other sites as people(includeing myself) watch films & episodes of various tv shows for free on there when techincly it's illegal? Not saying I want this to happen but its sort of the same thing. & also recording shows straight from the TV is actaully illegal....then why the hell do they make Vidio/DVD recorders for that sole purpose? |
| Mr Mercury 24.04.2010 17:04 |
ILoveQueen20 wrote: & also recording shows straight from the TV is actually illegal....then why the hell do they make Video/DVD recorders for that sole purpose? Technically you could argue that, since you have already paid for your TV licence and / or your cable or satellite service, you have the right to record shows. You just dont have the right to distribute them, or show them to anyone else. Also, Video and DVD recorders can also be used to record home made stuff. |
| Raf 24.04.2010 19:47 |
Aion, on most occasions, nobody lost any money - do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded? |
| The Real Wizard 24.04.2010 20:47 |
aion wrote: "Sure music existed, but we've had record companies as long as we've had rock'n'roll and people listening to music in a home environment. A few decades ago it was simply impossible for a band to record and release an album and become famous without a record company" Right, but that was then. This is now. Why is anything that happened a few decades ago relevant to today's music marketplace? And who says being famous is a requirement for success or artistic satisfaction? Technology has made it possible for musicians to make a living more than ever before. Decades ago, it was far more rare for someone to be able to be successful in the music business without being famous, as there was little middle ground. Broadband has more or less made the internet the new broadcaster in favour of TV and radio. And with its widespread diversity, you don't have to be known to the man on the street to be successful. If the record companies decided to put their heads together with ISPs, they could create a business plan that requires internet users with high bandwidth usage to pay a tax that goes directly to the artists. But instead they blame (and often launch lawsuits against) people for using the technology that is at their fingertips. And when they win those lawsuits, the artists don't see a penny of it. "I don't see any of them leaving all record companies behind and then releasing their music for free on the internet because they would supposedly benefit from it." Then you simply haven't noticed. Many of the biggest acts of the 90s now release their music for free - Nine Inch Nails, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and Radiohead. Trent Reznor and Billy Corgan have both openly stated their strong distaste for record companies now that they're in the privileged position of not needing them anymore. And don't accuse them of biting the hand that feeds them. Their art is what made them famous. Their fans couldn't care less which company financed the project at the start. The record company was simply the vehicle that was available at the time to spread their art - the only vehicle available at the time. "If the same people could download concert tickets and T-shirts for free on the web they sure as hell wouldn't be paying for them." Of course. Do you as a consumer not look for a good deal as well? "Musicians don't promote that idea and quite to the contrary they seek to be on a record label." With all due respect.. you obviously don't know a lot of musicians then. And I'm also guessing that you're not a musician, either. Plenty of artists have no problem with their music being downloaded for free. They see downloading as a form of marketing simply because their art is heard by people who otherwise may not have heard their art in the first place. How's this for perspective - you currently see about 70% of your income, as you pay about 30% taxes back to the government. How would you like it if you only saw about 10% of your income and someone else got 90%? That's what the major label does to you if you sign to them. Reason #967 why most artists go with indie labels. |
| The Real Wizard 24.04.2010 20:52 |
Raf wrote: "do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded?" Excellent point. People download the music simply because it is available. |
| thunderbolt 31742 25.04.2010 01:38 |
Sir GH wrote: Trent Reznor and Billy Corgan have both openly stated their strong distaste for record companies now that they're in the privileged position of not needing them anymore. And don't accuse them of biting the hand that feeds them. Would you bite the hand that feeds you? Would you get down on your knees? Sorry, couldn't resist the NIN lyrical reference. About the only time you're really hurting a band by downloading their album instead of buying it is when the band releases the album on a label that they own, and those situations are rare. The rest of the time, you're not hurting the band much at all by downloading their music as opposed to buying it; you're hurting the record label. The highly-paid executives (and the even more highly-paid lawyers) just want you to think you're hurting your favorite artist. Truth is, many of them could not give less of a crap how you get their music so long as you listen to it and spend $50 a ticket to see them when they play an arena near you, as I just did for Muse. Does anyone else remember the film industry's ad campaign a few years back designed to make you feel like a horrible person for downloading movies instead of paying to see them in a theater? The ads that had the gaffers, the prop guys and the PAs talking about how they're only going to make $12.00 an hour to work on their next movie because the studio was losing so much revenue to bootleggers? Yeah, when the studio execs are making $12.00 an hour, I'll be worried about downloading movies doing harm to the film industry. Hell, the biggest thing harming the film industry right now is itself--if Hollywood were capable of making a movie that doesn't suck anymore, I'd gladly bend over, take it, and give the box-office jockey $12.00 a person to go see it. As it stands, I don't even download movies anymore--that's just how bad they are as of late. |
| aion 25.04.2010 04:57 |
Raf wrote: Aion, on most occasions, nobody lost any money - do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded? If you don't pay for it, you shouldn't be able to enjoy it - it's simple. It's not at all different situation from e.g. stealing a car. It's not alright to steal a car just because you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it. Or do you apply this logic in other places as well, let's say the supermarket? |
| aion 25.04.2010 05:50 |
>>If the record companies decided to put their heads together with ISPs, they could create a business plan that requires internet users with high bandwidth usage to pay a tax that goes directly to the artists. But instead they blame (and often launch lawsuits against) people for using the technology that is at their fingertips. And when they win those lawsuits, the artists don't see a penny of it.>> There's nothing wrong with a lawsuit against stealing. The justification of the pirates is that stealing is OK just because it's easy with new technology, and that's why - strangely - the record companies should change their ways and improve, and not the ones who are actually breaking the law. Record companies probably do need some new ways to counter piratism, but there are already quite easy alternatives for the average consumer for illegal downloading. >>Then you simply haven't noticed. Many of the biggest acts of the 90s now release their music for free - Nine Inch Nails, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and Radiohead. Trent Reznor and Billy Corgan have both openly stated their strong distaste for record companies now that they're in the privileged position of not needing them anymore. And don't accuse them of biting the hand that feeds them. Their art is what made them famous. Their fans couldn't care less which company financed the project at the start. The record company was simply the vehicle that was available at the time to spread their art - the only vehicle available at the time.>> Of course it's fine to release music for free. If those bands want to do it, that's great, and saves some of my money. But if they DON'T want to release it for free, we should respect that and pay for the music. It's up for the artists to decide. And the vast majority of musicians are not in the privileged position to release music for free (or don't want to release it for free even if they're already rich), but they want a paycheck for their work just like you want a paycheck for your work. >>Of course. Do you as a consumer not look for a good deal as well?>> That good deal is stealing and it's still against the law. It's actually interesting to think how fast the society would collapse if there weren't institutions that force people to abide law. Obviously the average man's moral code is so low that if they had the chance they would just grab everything they wanted and would do whatever they wanted if they didn't have to fear police, justice system etc. >>With all due respect.. you obviously don't know a lot of musicians then. And I'm also guessing that you're not a musician, either. Plenty of artists have no problem with their music being downloaded for free. They see downloading as a form of marketing simply because their art is heard by people who otherwise may not have heard their art in the first place. How's this for perspective - you currently see about 70% of your income, as you pay about 30% taxes back to the government. How would you like it if you only saw about 10% of your income and someone else got 90%? That's what the major label does to you if you sign to them. Reason #967 why most artists go with indie labels.>> It's funny because the artists on major labels tend to be richer than the ones on indie labels. Anyway I could quote my earlier post here, like I said if an artist chooses to be on a label (and most do) it's stupid for us to blame the company on behalf of the artist. It's ridiculous if we first accuse the record company of mistreatment of the artist and then we "help" the guy by stealing the album. |
| Raf 25.04.2010 07:11 |
aion wrote: Raf wrote: Aion, on most occasions, nobody lost any money - do you really think if people couldn't download music they would actually buy all the albums they have actually downloaded? If you don't pay for it, you shouldn't be able to enjoy it - it's simple. It's not at all different situation from e.g. stealing a car. It's not alright to steal a car just because you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it. Or do you apply this logic in other places as well, let's say the supermarket? --- If I steal a car or something from the supermarket, the original owner doesn't have it anymore. If a friend rips his favorite CD and send me the mp3 files, he's still got his CD. There was no loss involved... Just like there was no profit. I think the fact that there was no loss makes it plain wrong to call music downloading "theft". |
| YourValentine 25.04.2010 10:20 |
A very interesting discussion, I realise I did not consider all aspects of the issue concerning artist independence of record companies, the role of myspace etc. Still, I think I am with aion. I cannot imagine that many artists, even if they are very rich, like it when their product is downloaded for free and people do not pay. In the "old days" we copied albums on audio cassettes and swapped these cassettes on the school yard, simply because nobody could afford to buy all the albums. But it was not sharing an album with 1000s of people, just with a few friends. Also, the price of the cassettes already included a fee that was distributed to the artists in proportion to their actual record sales. Maybe it would be a solution if CD-Rs and DVD-Rs and even hard drives were sold with such a fee and the music industry and the movie industry were given a certain percentage of these sales to make up for possible losses due to pirating. This would be much better than enable government agencies to censor website content. |
| thunderbolt 31742 25.04.2010 19:06 |
Honestly, YV, I'm not in favor of adding any such fee to recordable media, and certainly not to hard drives. I believe that music is headed very decidedly back to the past. Back in the old days, artists didn't release albums. They released singles. The logic was simple--why would you release a record wth ten songs on it when, realistically, only a couple of them will make it onto the radio? Back then, radio was absolutely where the money was, as record players were something for the elite. Even much of Elvis' early work was released as singles, and the singles would later be put together into compilation albums. I think that's where we're headed now. The Led Zeppelin-style concept album that strings together from beginning to end? I suspect that will be a thing of the past in ten years, along with recordable music media as a whole. The vehicle was the last bastion of the CD, and most new cars now have MP3 player jacks in them for you to plug your iPod into instead of jerking around with a CD player while you drive. But with the rapidly-approaching switch to digital music, I fear, will come an end to the conventional album. iTunes buyers don't purchase the entire album. More often than not, they buy the two songs that are getting radio airplay, and don't listen to the rest. I'm sure there will still be bands out there releasing albums of ten songs or so for their hardcore fans, but I anticipate that most artists will opt to go the 1930's route instead, and rather than spend time and money on songs that won't be released to various forms of radio, they'll pump out digital singles. They may still record ten songs at a time, but I really doubt the ten songs will be released all at once, let alone in a "storybook album" style. In short, I think the days of "The Wall" have passed. I believed pretty strongly that the onset of Tivo and Netflix meant the end to recordable video media as well. That was before Blu-Ray, though. I think the format has saved recordable film media for at least the next ten years or so, but ultimately, I expect it will suffer the same fate that CD's will. ...and music/movie shops will be forced to either offer new products to replace the discs that no one wants anymore, or they'll go by the wayside. My two cents. |
| The Real Wizard 26.04.2010 12:29 |
aion wrote: The justification of the pirates is that stealing is OK just because it's easy with new technology, and that's why - strangely - the record companies should change their ways and improve, and not the ones who are actually breaking the law." But this is exactly the problem, when people place criminal law over all else. We as informed citizens have the right to question the law as the world evolves. It used to be illegal for black people to swim in a pool where white people swam. It used to be illegal for women to vote. These things changed. Today, it is illegal to choose not to fill the pockets of record company executives if you want to own music created by artists on major labels. Should that never change too? "Of course it's fine to release music for free. If those bands want to do it, that's great, and saves some of my money. But if they DON'T want to release it for free, we should respect that and pay for the music. It's up for the artists to decide." Then you should never turn on the radio, tv, watch youtube, or watch a friend's DVD if that is your moral fabric. "And the vast majority of musicians are not in the privileged position to release music for free (or don't want to release it for free even if they're already rich), but they want a paycheck for their work just like you want a paycheck for your work." Right. But as I outlined above, the record sales are not their paycheck - it is a very small part of their paycheck. Concerts are their paycheck. And plenty of people who go to the concerts to give the band their paycheck wouldn't be there if it weren't for downloading. "It's funny because the artists on major labels tend to be richer than the ones on indie labels." That's because the bigger labels have money to pump into marketing, and not after they tell the artist how their music should sound in order to have the "privilege" of it being marketed. |
| brENsKi 26.04.2010 13:02 |
YourValentine wrote: A very interesting discussion, I realise I did not consider all aspects of the issue concerning artist independence of record companies, the role of myspace etc. Still, I think I am with aion. I cannot imagine that many artists, even if they are very rich, like it when their product is downloaded for free and people do not pay. In the "old days" we copied albums on audio cassettes and swapped these cassettes on the school yard, simply because nobody could afford to buy all the albums. But it was not sharing an album with 1000s of people, just with a few friends. Also, the price of the cassettes already included a fee that was distributed to the artists in proportion to their actual record sales. Maybe it would be a solution if CD-Rs and DVD-Rs and even hard drives were sold with such a fee and the music industry and the movie industry were given a certain percentage of these sales to make up for possible losses due to pirating. This would be much better than enable government agencies to censor website content. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I usually agree with you Barb, but not this time. The "swapping tapes in the schoolyard" comparison is not accurate. Your argument is based on the premise of only swapping with one or two "friends" - but the overall effect is not "one or two". Practically every highschool and college was fully of "friends" swapping tapes. As much stuff got swapped - just on a slightly slower word of mouth basis rather than internet "wildfire". Added to this the comparison that if Jim took two tapes to school and swapped with Mary - that's in effect four full sales lost. With bittorrents (my understanding is) that "bits" are harvested from all sharing the item - so in effect you may have only "shared" 10% of an album. Levying the purchase of hard drives, memory sticks, cdrs and dvdrs would not tackle anything - it would merely condone condone it. An attitude of "i already paid for whatever i want, so i will download everything i can" would prevail - this could in effect make things worse. Finally, the govt took a move this year to ban radios in shared work spaces (in govt offices) where a licence has not been bought. Bit twisted i feel that a govt trying to reduce piracy is actually stopping people from hearing any new music duing 8 of the 18 hrs they are awake everyday. talk about nose and face. |
| Cwazy little thing 27.04.2010 07:15 |
I dont have time to get into this fully now, but having scanned through the thread, I have to say Im highly frustrated with the lack of respect for intellectual property on this site. Using greedy record companies as justification for casually breaking the law is ridiculous. Theres never any justification for casually breaking the law. If the law is wrong, you change it via the democratic process before carrying out the previously forbidden act, you dont go around being all high and mighty and saying you're in the right, therefore you can do as you please - society itself could not function with such an attitude. If you believe you should be able to get someone elses hard work for free you're simply a freeloader. The "I pay loads to go to concerts, therefore I should be allowed to download the music for free" argument is just nonesense - thats like saying I pay loads to buy a house, therefore I should be allowed to steal bricks whenever I want, or get gravel for my drive for free. |
| Gregsynth 27.04.2010 11:53 |
There's nothing wrong with downloading music! There's my two cents! |
| Saint Jiub 27.04.2010 19:26 |
Can someone please torrent "Lost Opportunity"? I am too lazy to dig my Headlong CD single out my basement. |
| YourValentine 28.04.2010 01:32 |
@ Brenski - you are right in a way. Copying music to cassettes was in nuce the same as downloading - only it was more work and as kids we did not believe that we have a right to own anything without paying. Whenever possible we bought the albums of our favourite bands, cassettes were only the second best thing. We also recorded a lot of radio music to tape machines for personal use because it was impossible to buy all the latest singles.We simply did not feel that we were stealing and I think that many kids feel the same today when they download music: there is no visible damage for anybody, so why not download whenever possible. In the early days of downloading it was crystal clear that downloading was illegal - remember the Metallica vs Napster case. Today many artists offer their music for free or start their carreers on myspace rather than EMI as Bob pointed out correctly, so the society must find a way to stop the theft of copyrighted music on the one hand and also to stop legislation from developing censorship tools that will hurt all citizens in the end. I do not know the answer but some sort of general payment or fee would maybe help all parties involved. |
| aion 03.05.2010 10:38 |
Raf wrote: >>If I steal a car or something from the supermarket, the original owner doesn't have it anymore. If a friend rips his favorite CD and send me the mp3 files, he's still got his CD. There was no loss involved... Just like there was no profit. I think the fact that there was no loss makes it plain wrong to call music downloading "theft". >> When you copy it, the effect is still the same: you get the product but the maker of the product doesn't get the money. |
| aion 03.05.2010 11:37 |
>>>>But this is exactly the problem, when people place criminal law over all else. We as informed citizens have the right to question the law as the world evolves. It used to be illegal for black people to swim in a pool where white people swam. It used to be illegal for women to vote. These things changed. Today, it is illegal to choose not to fill the pockets of record company executives if you want to own music created by artists on major labels. Should that never change too?>>> Yeah, we could join the Swedish pirate party and try to abolish copyright laws for our own convenience. We would be acting against the artists though, motivated by our selfishness, and at least I would question the morality of the case where the creator of something doesn't have a say in how their invention/product/work of art is used/distributed/modified. >>Then you should never turn on the radio, tv, watch youtube, or watch a friend's DVD if that is your moral fabric.>> No, I don't have that kind of absurdly strict stance against hearing music for free. There are many ways to hear music for free or almost free and that's just fine... radio, TV, libraries, friends' music collections, Spotify etc. I have listened to radio, borrowed CDs from people and the library, used You Tube and so on. But the thing with downloading is that it makes it too easy and commonplace to grab stuff for free that they sell in the store. Back in the old days when you copied albums to cassette tapes or recorded something off the radio, then at the least you had to buy the cassette and sit there and manually do it, you had to have the album at hand and do it slowly one album at a time. But nowadays, with downloading, you press one button and go to sleep, and in the morning you'll have 5,000 songs on the computer. It would have taken years and years to copy that amount to cassettes, and this easiness means that it's actually hurting the industry. It's a whole new world compared to the old time, and if artists don't like this new situation then I don't think we should act against them if we have any respect for the people whose music we listen to and enjoy. >>Right. But as I outlined above, the record sales are not their paycheck - it is a very small part of their paycheck. Concerts are their paycheck. And plenty of people who go to the concerts to give the band their paycheck wouldn't be there if it weren't for downloading.>> The album is part of the paycheck as long as the artist is on the label and wants it to be part of the paycheck. Paying for a concert ticket (just because it's harder to steal a ticket than an mp3) doesn't mean that you should grab the record and those people could/should/would have become fans because they saw the music video, their friend had the album or whatever other way there was before Bittorrent... |
| Raf 06.05.2010 10:15 |
aion wrote: Raf wrote: >>If I steal a car or something from the supermarket, the original owner doesn't have it anymore. If a friend rips his favorite CD and send me the mp3 files, he's still got his CD. There was no loss involved... Just like there was no profit. I think the fact that there was no loss makes it plain wrong to call music downloading "theft". >> When you copy it, the effect is still the same: you get the product but the maker of the product doesn't get the money. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, it is NOT the same effect as stealing. Stealing: You have A Night At The Opera, I don't. I steal it from you. Now I have ANATO and you don't. Copying: You have A Night At The Opera. I don't. I copy it from you. Now both of us have it. Nobody LOST anything. |
| tcc 06.05.2010 10:37 |
Raf wrote: aion wrote: Raf wrote: >>If I steal a car or something from the supermarket, the original owner doesn't have it anymore. If a friend rips his favorite CD and send me the mp3 files, he's still got his CD. There was no loss involved... Just like there was no profit. I think the fact that there was no loss makes it plain wrong to call music downloading "theft". >> When you copy it, the effect is still the same: you get the product but the maker of the product doesn't get the money. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, it is NOT the same effect as stealing. Stealing: You have A Night At The Opera, I don't. I steal it from you. Now I have ANATO and you don't. Copying: You have A Night At The Opera. I don't. I copy it from you. Now both of us have it. Nobody LOST anything. Stealing : One copy of ANATO was sold. Copying : One copy of ANATO was sold. |
| GratefulFan 06.05.2010 10:43 |
Copying when two (or more) people are highly motivated to own ANATO: One copy is sold Stealing when two (or more) people are highly motivated to own ANATO: Two (or more) copies are sold |
| tcc 06.05.2010 11:15 |
GratefulFan wrote: Copying when two (or more) people are highly motivated to own ANATO: One copy is sold Stealing when two (or more) people are highly motivated to own ANATO: Two (or more) copies are sold Logic : People dare to copy but dare not steal (steal = Go to Jail - Do Not Collect $200). |