As has been said, if I download something, the record company has not lost the revenue, unless I would have bought it.
But why would you download something that you wouldn't have bought and so is basically of no value to you? Everyone seems to claim this is the case and that they would have bought hardly any of their illegally downloaded music. Why won't anyone just own up to being a skinflint?
But why would you download something that you wouldn't have bought and so is basically of no value to you? Everyone seems to claim this is the case and that they would have bought hardly any of their illegally downloaded music. Why won't anyone just own up to being a skinflint?
Because I buy the same amount of music as I used to. Music is easily downloaded, so I may download an album that I had no intention of buying, have a listen and then probably never play it again.
I'd love to see some real numbers, comparing taping in the 80s ('Home Taping Is Killing Music'!) with downloading now. I suspect (ok, know ) that masses of copying went on back then, and the music industry somehow managed to survive.
so I may download an album that I had no intention of buying, have a listen and then probably never play it again.
Ok I've done this in the past, but as someone upthread pointed out, there's no need to do it any more - you can preview albums at your leisure at any number of sites, all legal and above board, and no threat to your broadband, wallet or liberty!
Ok I've done this in the past, but as someone upthread pointed out, there's no need to do it any more - you can preview albums at your leisure at any number of sites, all legal and above board, and no threat to your broadband, wallet or liberty!
Yes, I mentioned this in my earlier post... the few applications and sites that are slowly appearing.
Like the article says the for and against camp seem like two sides of the same coin.
One thing I thought was missing from the programme was a proper examination of the ISPs and Google in all this, I'm not sure how much of internet business is based on illegal downloads but I bet it's a significant percentage, and I can't really see that many people paying proper money for superfast broadband if they can only go on legit sites.
Google and the like are fond of crying foul and saying something about internet freedom but whatever you think about illegal downloading they are the companies making the real money off someone else's material.
It's incredible quite how far google are into this, there was some controversey recently when Google shutdown a couple of music blogs that were built on the Google Blogspot template. The funny thing was that these were single mp3 blogs - something that's largely supported by record labels as another means of promotion. These blogs are often aggregated through Elbo and The Hype Machine sites and offer music fans the chance to download tracks and be exposed to music they might not otherwise encounter.
Sorry to go on about this, but the point is that about 90 percent of illegal download album sites can be found on yep you guessed it, the blogspot template, these sites are not difficult to find, ocassionally one will be taken down, (presumably off the back of a letter from one of the record companies) but it's quite rare.
thatdarncat asked -
Do you remember ten/fifteen years ago when CDs were £17 in HMV? The record industry is obviously one of those businesses that need a kick up the backside to change their model, and people illegally downloading did that (starting with Napster). The music biz really is its own worst enemy.
Yeah I remember and it was no damn fun at all and if the music industry want to try and do that again it really will be the end of them.
I think one of the main reasons that music is downloaded illegally is that people want to hear the music rather than steal it, in the 60s record shops had listening booths where you could listen to your prospective purchase before parting with your cash, these were kind of brought back in the 90s but you could only hear the records the shops were promoting.
The other day I heard an album on myspace which turned out to have one very good single on it, but no harm done I could hear it without having to steal it (although you could steal it by recording it I don't think many people would bother) on the other hand if I download an album illegally and like it, there's no real motivation to buy it because it will just end up on my computer anyway.
There are a few services online which allow you to hear an album, but I think if everyone embraced this idea and you could access the music like on myspace (ie no adverts on or inbetween the actual music) you could change the culture slightly and counter the arguments for illegal downloading.
The record companies also need to offer better value for money and try to find a bottom line between £17 for a cd or nothing at all.
...and my PC can record at the same time as playing... no downloading then!
I think that you are missing my point. I said that these technologies could have been embraced and developed by the record companies, maintaining control of their media while making money and giving the end user what they are looking for.
If they had spent their cash on this, instead of spending it pointlessly trying to stop illegal downloading, then I can imagine things would have went the other way for them.
I think the music industry needs to find some way so that you only buy the song once.
I don't really want to have to pay 3 or 4 times for the same song. LP, Tape, CD, MP3 etc.
I've just had a hard drive break with a back up (thankfully) of my music collection on, there is no way I would pay again to fill it with the same songs.
Some how they need a way so that when we've paid for a song, we can download it again and again, even when new technology comes along (with any extra costs for production which were not taken off when CDs were improved with downloads).
I think the music industry needs to find some way so that you only buy the song once.
I don't really want to have to pay 3 or 4 times for the same song. LP, Tape, CD, MP3 etc.
I've just had a hard drive break with a back up (thankfully) of my music collection on, there is no way I would pay again to fill it with the same songs.
Some how they need a way so that when we've paid for a song, we can download it again and again, even when new technology comes along (with any extra costs for production which were not taken off when CDs were improved with downloads).
I couldn't agree more with these points. Record industry fatcats moan at the supposed money they are losing from downloads while overlooking that they in effect made people rebuy their record and film collections when old technologies were superseded.
I agree that it's also offputting to pay to download material that might be lost in a computer crash, ipod theft, or other problem. A lot of money is wasted that way.
I couldn't agree more with these points. Record industry fatcats moan at the supposed money they are losing from downloads while overlooking that they in effect made people rebuy their record and film collections when old technologies were superseded.
I agree that it's also offputting to pay to download material that might be lost in a computer crash, ipod theft, or other problem. A lot of money is wasted that way.
I have payed twice for my Bowie collection, Beatles collection and my Queen collection... then I got wise and thought... hang on...
The british legal system has always been pragmatic and should adapt to changing times.
I used to completely agree that artists and musicians should be paid for their work, and disliked the idea of copyright theft, but with todays technology and the attitude of a lot of young people, who are so used to illegally downloading music and films, that they cannot understand what the fuss is about. I think the legal system needs to change and reflect changing attitudes towards piracy.
I cant come up with a convincing arguement for a 19 year old that copyright piracy is wrong when the majority of her peers are all doing it.
And most of the british media is in on the act, Fashion chains and supermarkets rip off the major designers ideas, tv programmes copy almost word for word programmes from rival channels, like the whole glut of dance and talent programmes recently. And all the politicans are in on the act -copying each others ideas, and election promises.
Wow, that program was so frustrating to watch. All the comments that I wanted to scream "DON'T TALK SHIT" about, all the questions that I wanted to hear asked but never were...
As has been said, if I download something, the record company has not lost the revenue, unless I would have bought it.
If the record companies were not so against the changing times, then they would not have this problem now. Instead of embracing the era, they spent a lot of cash trying to fight piracy. This could have been spent realising that people suddenly want music free/cheap and on demand. They could have developed technology or ways to do this and still make money.
We are now starting to see products coming out that can give us on demand music, free, whilst still making money for the companies. This is happening far too slowly though, with too low quality.
I agree with you that the programme came across as one sided propaganda for the media business industry.
It was more like a government information film than it was a real documentary.
I thought that the BBC prided itself on diverse views and a high quality of investigative journalism.
This was just a sounding board for the media business corps to preach their rhetoric.
My problem with the programme was that they completely ignored any of the human rights issues involved and dumbed down the debate to a simple "File sharing is bad - no it's not.".
The fact that entire households or universities can be disconnected from the Internet based purely on the mere accusation of one person's wrong-doing is the most controversial aspect of the Bill. Panorama didn't mention this issue at all - or the fact that those accused don't even have the right to a fair, court trial.
The most hilarious part of the programme was when the lead singer of Scouting For Girls compared file-sharing to "stealing bread."
This was such a stunningly flawed analogy, I just had to laugh. Yes, bakers deserve to be paid for their work, but they constantly have to create new produce in order to make a living - they certainly don't expect to keep being paid for a mouldy old loaf they made 30 years ago.
There's also this common perception that if everybody bought music instead of downloading it then the record labels would suddenly be more charitable to their own acts on their record label and they'd somehow get a fairer deal.
The music industry in its present form is dying, being killed by illegal downloading (seemingly by people who say there's no decent music out there, according to the comments here!).
It's all very well saying artists can make their money touring. Most won't make anywhere near what they could have from selling records.
And how would this argument apply to the other industries soon to be killed off by illegal downloading?: yes, the film and games industries. Who's going to bother investing millions of dollars creating a film or game if they can't make any money by selling it?
See link in post #52 - some studies suggest otherwise.
What difference does it make whether it's a physical product or not that you're taking? It still cost money to produce (the cost of recording, marketing etc). And downloading it illegally still means that the creator receives a lesser reward for their work (and/or possibly means higher prices for everyone else). If this argument of 'it's okay to steal non-physical products' stands, then I suppose it must be morally fine to fare-dodge and sneak into gigs and sporting events without paying?
As for this "I'm only doing it to browse more music" argument, pull the other one. There are plenty of ways to browse music nowadays without the need for illegal downloading.
Agreed. It's strange that all this "browsing" and "sampling" of music just happened to coincide with the collapse of music sales. It's amazing how people argue passionately about their right to steal things but you never hear them moaning when their parents give them pocket money or their boss pays them each month........ Double standards?
The ISPs and Google etc cry "freedom" but all they care about are their own multi-billion pound revenues. All they want are hits on their sites etc. The more restrictions, the more they fear they'll lose. It's not about "freedom" and "human rights", it's about the bottom line.
People still love and listen to music and I can't blame the industry for wanting to protect their revenues. It's not as if no likes music anymore, is it? Just look at Youtube etc. Their largest viewing figures are for............... music videos. Look at all the torrent sites etc. Why are billions of tracks being "shared" if its so bad? You could argue that music has never been more popular.
People are very naive. Hardly ANY band makes money from touring. It requires large financial support from labels (or friends and family!) to go on tour. Just as it costs a lot of money to record, produce, mix, engineer and promote a record. Bands go on tour to promote their music and records.
Because fewer people are buying music the labels are now taking larger shares of merchandise sales etc which used to go to the artists. So the more people steal music the less the artist gets. Strangely...... Why would a label support a band that doesn't make any money?
I'm a bit suspicious of people attacking the the music business for making profit. How many companies go out to make a loss?
Anyway, online sales are actually rising... So reports of the "death of the music business" are probably premature.
I don't blame the industry for wanting to protect their revenues.
I just don't think they should subvert the basic principles of justice and democracy in order to do so.
The fact is that this new law won't do anything to stop piracy. It won't stop anyone from file-sharing. It will only inconvenience the innocent.
I don't blame the industry for wanting to protect their revenues.
I just don't think they should subvert the basic principles of justice and democracy in order to do so.
The fact is that this new law won't do anything to stop piracy. It won't stop anyone from file-sharing. It will only inconvenience the innocent.
How will it inconvenience the innocent?
If someone isn't downloading illegal content then surely nothing will happen to them?
People are very naive. Hardly ANY band makes money from touring. It requires large financial support from labels (or friends and family!) to go on tour. Just as it costs a lot of money to record, produce, mix, engineer and promote a record. Bands go on tour to promote their music and records.
That used to be the case, but it is turning around. It's true that the really small bands struggle to make much money on tour, but they're not making much money on record sales either. However, they often work with friendly small labels or even produce their own stuff, and they may even provide free downloads of some of their music (I'm on the mailing list of some indy bands that give me free samples and previews--I do buy their albums, so the system works). Then every so often they may get lucky with a moneymaker--as when Grey's Anatomy picked up one of Kate Walsh's songs.
If someone isn't downloading illegal content then surely nothing will happen to them?
I think the poster was getting at the fact, that innocent internet users are going to be monitored and scrutinized whilst using the internet.
I assume you don't download illegally, but how would you feel if you had a knock on the door because you were simply discussing the subject on a forum?
Illegal downloaders have a plethora of options and tricks up their sleeves to get around any kind of law the government introduces.
Proxy servers and IP scramblers being quite common, as any monitoring would show to the police that the activity was taking place in Canada/Mexico, where they have no jurisdiction.
I'd love to see some real numbers, comparing taping in the 80s ('Home Taping Is Killing Music'!) with downloading now. I suspect (ok, know ) that masses of copying went on back then, and the music industry somehow managed to survive.
Yep this is a good point! I used to spend ev Sund afternoon taping the 'Top 40' off Radio 1 and then editing it down to my favourite tracks. EVERYONE had a 'double tape deck' cassette recorder which is only the same as ripping CDs or illegally downloading MP3s/4s whateva they're called nowadays. Performers are going to go back to how things used to be - earning money from actual live gigs plus spin offs such as interviews and products.
That used to be the case, but it is turning around. It's true that the really small bands struggle to make much money on tour, but they're not making much money on record sales either. However, they often work with friendly small labels or even produce their own stuff, and they may even provide free downloads of some of their music (I'm on the mailing list of some indy bands that give me free samples and previews--I do buy their albums, so the system works). Then every so often they may get lucky with a moneymaker--as when Grey's Anatomy picked up one of Kate Walsh's songs.
Plus the continued income of royalties everytime their track is played on radio or used in a commercial / tv show etc. There are thousands of dead artists who family / estate earn big money from radio stations all around the world.
Comments
But why would you download something that you wouldn't have bought and so is basically of no value to you?
Ok I've done this in the past, but as someone upthread pointed out, there's no need to do it any more - you can preview albums at your leisure at any number of sites, all legal and above board, and no threat to your broadband, wallet or liberty!
...and my PC can record at the same time as playing... no downloading then!
Like the article says the for and against camp seem like two sides of the same coin.
One thing I thought was missing from the programme was a proper examination of the ISPs and Google in all this, I'm not sure how much of internet business is based on illegal downloads but I bet it's a significant percentage, and I can't really see that many people paying proper money for superfast broadband if they can only go on legit sites.
Google and the like are fond of crying foul and saying something about internet freedom but whatever you think about illegal downloading they are the companies making the real money off someone else's material.
It's incredible quite how far google are into this, there was some controversey recently when Google shutdown a couple of music blogs that were built on the Google Blogspot template. The funny thing was that these were single mp3 blogs - something that's largely supported by record labels as another means of promotion. These blogs are often aggregated through Elbo and The Hype Machine sites and offer music fans the chance to download tracks and be exposed to music they might not otherwise encounter.
Sorry to go on about this, but the point is that about 90 percent of illegal download album sites can be found on yep you guessed it, the blogspot template, these sites are not difficult to find, ocassionally one will be taken down, (presumably off the back of a letter from one of the record companies) but it's quite rare.
thatdarncat asked -
Yeah I remember and it was no damn fun at all and if the music industry want to try and do that again it really will be the end of them.
I think one of the main reasons that music is downloaded illegally is that people want to hear the music rather than steal it, in the 60s record shops had listening booths where you could listen to your prospective purchase before parting with your cash, these were kind of brought back in the 90s but you could only hear the records the shops were promoting.
The other day I heard an album on myspace which turned out to have one very good single on it, but no harm done I could hear it without having to steal it (although you could steal it by recording it I don't think many people would bother) on the other hand if I download an album illegally and like it, there's no real motivation to buy it because it will just end up on my computer anyway.
There are a few services online which allow you to hear an album, but I think if everyone embraced this idea and you could access the music like on myspace (ie no adverts on or inbetween the actual music) you could change the culture slightly and counter the arguments for illegal downloading.
The record companies also need to offer better value for money and try to find a bottom line between £17 for a cd or nothing at all.
If they had spent their cash on this, instead of spending it pointlessly trying to stop illegal downloading, then I can imagine things would have went the other way for them.
I don't really want to have to pay 3 or 4 times for the same song. LP, Tape, CD, MP3 etc.
I've just had a hard drive break with a back up (thankfully) of my music collection on, there is no way I would pay again to fill it with the same songs.
Some how they need a way so that when we've paid for a song, we can download it again and again, even when new technology comes along (with any extra costs for production which were not taken off when CDs were improved with downloads).
when im at the PC ive got youtube or http://www.muzu.tv/gb in the background all the new songs are there = no need to buy anything.
I couldn't agree more with these points. Record industry fatcats moan at the supposed money they are losing from downloads while overlooking that they in effect made people rebuy their record and film collections when old technologies were superseded.
I agree that it's also offputting to pay to download material that might be lost in a computer crash, ipod theft, or other problem. A lot of money is wasted that way.
I have payed twice for my Bowie collection, Beatles collection and my Queen collection... then I got wise and thought... hang on...
I used to completely agree that artists and musicians should be paid for their work, and disliked the idea of copyright theft, but with todays technology and the attitude of a lot of young people, who are so used to illegally downloading music and films, that they cannot understand what the fuss is about. I think the legal system needs to change and reflect changing attitudes towards piracy.
I cant come up with a convincing arguement for a 19 year old that copyright piracy is wrong when the majority of her peers are all doing it.
And most of the british media is in on the act, Fashion chains and supermarkets rip off the major designers ideas, tv programmes copy almost word for word programmes from rival channels, like the whole glut of dance and talent programmes recently. And all the politicans are in on the act -copying each others ideas, and election promises.
I agree with you that the programme came across as one sided propaganda for the media business industry.
It was more like a government information film than it was a real documentary.
I thought that the BBC prided itself on diverse views and a high quality of investigative journalism.
This was just a sounding board for the media business corps to preach their rhetoric.
The fact that entire households or universities can be disconnected from the Internet based purely on the mere accusation of one person's wrong-doing is the most controversial aspect of the Bill. Panorama didn't mention this issue at all - or the fact that those accused don't even have the right to a fair, court trial.
The most hilarious part of the programme was when the lead singer of Scouting For Girls compared file-sharing to "stealing bread."
This was such a stunningly flawed analogy, I just had to laugh. Yes, bakers deserve to be paid for their work, but they constantly have to create new produce in order to make a living - they certainly don't expect to keep being paid for a mouldy old loaf they made 30 years ago.
See link in post #52 - some studies suggest otherwise.
Agreed. It's strange that all this "browsing" and "sampling" of music just happened to coincide with the collapse of music sales. It's amazing how people argue passionately about their right to steal things but you never hear them moaning when their parents give them pocket money or their boss pays them each month........ Double standards?
The ISPs and Google etc cry "freedom" but all they care about are their own multi-billion pound revenues. All they want are hits on their sites etc. The more restrictions, the more they fear they'll lose. It's not about "freedom" and "human rights", it's about the bottom line.
People still love and listen to music and I can't blame the industry for wanting to protect their revenues. It's not as if no likes music anymore, is it? Just look at Youtube etc. Their largest viewing figures are for............... music videos. Look at all the torrent sites etc. Why are billions of tracks being "shared" if its so bad? You could argue that music has never been more popular.
People are very naive. Hardly ANY band makes money from touring. It requires large financial support from labels (or friends and family!) to go on tour. Just as it costs a lot of money to record, produce, mix, engineer and promote a record. Bands go on tour to promote their music and records.
Because fewer people are buying music the labels are now taking larger shares of merchandise sales etc which used to go to the artists. So the more people steal music the less the artist gets. Strangely...... Why would a label support a band that doesn't make any money?
I'm a bit suspicious of people attacking the the music business for making profit. How many companies go out to make a loss?
Anyway, online sales are actually rising... So reports of the "death of the music business" are probably premature.
The world's smallest violin is just starting a tune-up as I speak .
I just don't think they should subvert the basic principles of justice and democracy in order to do so.
The fact is that this new law won't do anything to stop piracy. It won't stop anyone from file-sharing. It will only inconvenience the innocent.
How will it inconvenience the innocent?
If someone isn't downloading illegal content then surely nothing will happen to them?
That used to be the case, but it is turning around. It's true that the really small bands struggle to make much money on tour, but they're not making much money on record sales either. However, they often work with friendly small labels or even produce their own stuff, and they may even provide free downloads of some of their music (I'm on the mailing list of some indy bands that give me free samples and previews--I do buy their albums, so the system works). Then every so often they may get lucky with a moneymaker--as when Grey's Anatomy picked up one of Kate Walsh's songs.
I think the poster was getting at the fact, that innocent internet users are going to be monitored and scrutinized whilst using the internet.
I assume you don't download illegally, but how would you feel if you had a knock on the door because you were simply discussing the subject on a forum?
Illegal downloaders have a plethora of options and tricks up their sleeves to get around any kind of law the government introduces.
Proxy servers and IP scramblers being quite common, as any monitoring would show to the police that the activity was taking place in Canada/Mexico, where they have no jurisdiction.
Yep this is a good point! I used to spend ev Sund afternoon taping the 'Top 40' off Radio 1 and then editing it down to my favourite tracks. EVERYONE had a 'double tape deck' cassette recorder which is only the same as ripping CDs or illegally downloading MP3s/4s whateva they're called nowadays. Performers are going to go back to how things used to be - earning money from actual live gigs plus spin offs such as interviews and products.
Plus the continued income of royalties everytime their track is played on radio or used in a commercial / tv show etc. There are thousands of dead artists who family / estate earn big money from radio stations all around the world.