The big filesharing debate

[Rummy]

Sounded to me from the original article, she was whining because there were other bands out there who are better than her. The ones who 'got rich off cd sales before piracy' somehow apparently ties into them having 'sell out big arena tours'(those aren't exact quotes, i know) but surely the latter is owed to the fact they make music that people like? Which means she and her cronies are just a bit shit and jealous? I dunno. The whole argument is one I've heard too many times, but I always used to think music was too expensive anyhow. I don't understand how them selling lots of CDs leads to sell out arena tours, if anything in this modern day and age where music is so easily(albeit it illegally) accessible it should be even easier for artists to become popular?

Edited September 25, 2009 by Rummy

[MoogleViper]

I download music illegally. Buying a CD is a rip off and only benefits the labels and such, not the artist. Whereas when I download music for free I get into bands that I wouldn't normally have and go to see them in concert. If I bought the albums I wouldn't be able to afford to see bands live.

 

I download TV programs. Sometimes if I've missed them and it's not on iplayer (or a BBC program). I also downloaded prison break and Lost. But I don't have Sky and the box sets are a rip off. I did buy Season 3 of Lost and my sister bought season 1. I feel that this more than makes up for the ones I've downloaded.

[Ganepark32]

Having become more engrossed with music as a whole for various reasons, such as being friends with people in bands and helping out with them, my views have changed slightly on the subject but it's still the same really. Now, I'll always go and buy anything I like music wise, even if it's an album that only has one song on it that I like, because, as others have said, there's something about having a physical copy of something like a CD that makes it better.

 

Yet while I do this, I know there are people who can't afford to spend upwards of £10 on a CD or two every week and as a result online and free file sharing will not go away. Because of all of these middlemen wanting a slice of the profits, albums prices have shot through the roof over the last few years. I mean, there have been new albums that have come out and I've had to pay something like £16 or £19 for it. Ridiculous when you consider how little the artists will actually get back from that.

 

I'm not completely against free downloading as it's something that won't go away and in all honesty, it's helping those who can't afford to buy all the albums from their favourite artists. Instead of focusing on the fact that they aren't getting money from the downloads, which is in essence the completely wrong reason you should become a musician and is the reason why Lars Ulrich is such an ass, these artists should be looking at how to make their music more accessible for those that don't have the money to either buy the albums or go to their concerts, and perhaps free downloading is the way to do this. But they won't agree to it because there are very few musicians nowadays who don't care about the money they make. Why else would this argument still be on going? It's because these people are money hungry and granted, they should be rewarded for their efforts but if people downloading their music for free ends up in a larger audience of people who will go to their concerts or buy merchandise then surely that should make up for it in the end.

 

But they'll never be happy and the argument will continue because they'll look to the bigger acts that are massive within the world of music and complain that they'll never get to that level purely because the medium of the industry has changed. Perhaps if they understood how and why the industry has changed/needs to change then we'd be able to move on from this. I mean, Lily Allen has a hard neck complaining about this seeing as she was part of the Myspace generation of acts that got signed where she would do what? Thats right, offer her music for free. F**king hypocrite.

[danny]

I try not to download things illegaly. I have in the past but dont anymore.

Ive never downloaded films as i just wait a few months and buy dvds for like £6. I never ever pay more than £10 for a dvd unless its something i really really want.

 

Im not trying to start a flame war but all the people who say i dont buy cds, dvds etc because there a rip off, only line the labels pockets etc etc.

How do you judge this to be any different than anything else? I mean fuel is a rip off but you woudnt go and rob a petrol station. I mean most garages make virtually no oney from selling fuel they just line the govenment pockets in tax. How is that any different? But you woudnt do it.

[Mr_Odwin]

When you download something you aren't taking a physical item off someone else, so it's not theft or stealing. It's a digital copy, not an old lady's handbag.

[danny]

When you download something you aren't taking a physical item off someone else, so it's not theft or stealing. It's a digital copy, not an old lady's handbag.

 

But it is theft. Its just modern theft. Im not judgeing anyone. But dont try to kid yourself about what you are doing.

[Eenuh]

I haven't downloaded anything in years. I used to download songs from artists I didn't know just to check them out, and if I liked enough songs I would buy the album. I occasionally downloaded songs that I wasn't gonna buy, as it was just one single song and I don't feel like buying an album for one song.

 

But that's been years ago. Today, if I want to check out an artist, I'll just look on places like Youtube (wish Spotify would work here). I heavily prefer to own the original, physical album; it just feels a lot more authentic to me, plus I like to support the artists I like. =)

 

When you download something you aren't taking a physical item off someone else, so it's not theft or stealing. It's a digital copy, not an old lady's handbag.

 

I'm sorry but if someone copied one of my images online and used it for their own profit or used it as something that they made, then that is theft. It's the same with music or any other digital files.

[Gizmo]

I wrote an essay about this last year for my Modern Studies class. Dunno what the quality of it is since I wrote it ages ago but I'll try and find it and post it here if it's reasonable :p

[Supergrunch]

:bowdown:

 

I'm glad someone else finds him crap. I think he sounds like what i believe is a cross between eating course sand-paper and being drunk at the same time

Isn't that a bit like saying you're glad you've found someone else who likes Star Wars?

When you download something you aren't taking a physical item off someone else, so it's not theft or stealing. It's a digital copy, not an old lady's handbag.

This. Whatever the adverts at the start of DVDs may claim, copyright theft is not equivlent to shoplifting, as you're not depriving anyone of a product - a more suitable comparison would be going into a book shop and taking photos of every page of a book then putting it back on the shelf and going home to read it without paying. Which is of course still illegal, but you've not stolen a product, you've violated copyright.

I'm sorry but if someone copied one of my images online and used it for their own profit or used it as something that they made, then that is theft. It's the same with music or any other digital files.

But that's again not the same thing, as the vast majority of people committing copyright theft aren't profiting out of it, they're just using the copied item for their own enjoyment. It would be like someone taking one of your sample images and turning it into a print, then putting it up on their wall, without paying anything. Sure, they'd have violated your copyright, but would you call that theft? Of course artists can protect against this sort of thing by only giving out low quality and/or watermarked samples, but the same isn't true for musicians.

 

But yes, filesharing and so on is definitely a problem, though I think the onus is more on the music companies to provide a solution that's better for customers than illegal downloading than for the downloaders to stop what they're doing, as they always have been and always will be people committing copyright theft. Like almost everyone here, I used to download music a few years back, but have stopped, in part because I haven't owned or needed an mp3 player for ages. I used youtube for listening to the odd song I didn't have, and now Spotify exists, all my problems are solved - that's one example of a good partial solution to the problem.

 

I've heard two other proposals that sounded realistic - one was to provide more bonuses in the purchasable product (be it physical or otherwise), such as lossless files, and whatever else people might want, then accept that an inevitable few will decide not to bother with this and download the track instead. This of course rests on actually making a product that people will want to buy over and above just the track itself, which is really what record companies should be doing in the first place, though it'd be difficult to think of suitable things to include, and it's possible that this would have to be coupled with a fall (or at least, lack of an increase) in price for a better product.

 

The other suggestion came from Matt Bellamy I think, and was to effectively have ISPs giving out different priced packages depending on what you wanted to do with your connection - those just wanting web and email paying less, and those wanting to download stuff on top of this paying more, with some of the extra paid going to the music companies and so on who'd suffer losses from the downloading. I think this would have to be flat rate, and could potentially work some time in the future, but there are difficulties - while it's easy enough to block off the ports for things like torreting, it'd be hard to stop all downloading efficiently, and also you'd have hell getting ISPs to conform with this. And of course it wouldn't be terribly popular with internet users.

 

Finally, it's worth noting that it isn't really the rich musicians and so on who are suffering from the losses surrounding filesharing. It's all very well to think it's okay to marginally reduce the profits of wealthy individuals or faceless corporations, but such reductions have knock on effects, and could, for instance, lead to low level employees of these companies having to be sacked. These are the sorts of people who really suffer from copyright theft.

[weeyellowbloke]

I don't usually download albums from torrents, that just seems greedy and wrong to me. What I do however is look through the tons of MP3 blogs that exist on the internet. I like them because it is basically just some guy saying "I like this, you might like it too". Before you download the track you have no idea if it will be great or shite, so it's like a big musical adventure and occassionally you hear something that makes you want to investigate further and buy more. Plus youtube videos might never have known about get recommended. Also some of them link you up to some great stuff like the guy who records and uploads old mixtapes he finds in charity shops.

 

I would never pay for a download though, that just seems stupid to me. I'd much rather have an actual solid item within my hands if I buy something. And as for Spotify, I have no idea how it works. People have tried to explain it to me before, but I just don't get it.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Isn't that a bit like saying you're glad you've found someone else who likes Star Wars?

But there are many more people out there who like Star Wars, shocking as it may seem

[Supergrunch]

But there are many more people out there who like Star Wars, shocking as it may seem

My point exactly. Everyone hates James Blunt. Apart from the mysterious people who apparently buy his records...

[EEVILMURRAY]

My point exactly. Everyone hates James Blunt. Apart from the mysterious people who apparently buy his records...

Yeah, but everyone and their pets love Star Wars. That's more bodies.

[Mr_Odwin]

But it is theft. Its just modern theft. Im not judgeing anyone. But dont try to kid yourself about what you are doing.

 

I'm sorry but if someone copied one of my images online and used it for their own profit or used it as something that they made, then that is theft. It's the same with music or any other digital files.

 

I'm not saying it is right, but technically it is copyright infringement, not theft. Filesharers get prosecuted for copyright infringement, not theft.

 

Plus, one copyright infringement does not equal one lost sale. If I never, ever, ever would have bought a track but I download it just because I can, that's clearly not theft; it's copyright infringement.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Mr_Odwin

[Supergrunch]

Yeah, but everyone and their pets love Star Wars. That's more bodies.

Lol, fair enough. Then substitute Star Wars for something with a suitably smaller (but still large) fanbase of your choice. It was hyperbole anyway.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Lol, fair enough. Then substitute Star Wars for something with a suitably smaller (but still large) fanbase of your choice.

 

Hmmm... Lost, Assville, Ass Break... Many shit US dramas.

[Molly]

As I stated somewhere else, much to some peoples amusement, I am totally legal these days.

 

Main reasons being, I hate watching TV/films on a computer monitor. Yes I know you can link a computer to a tv, but let's face it, that's not going to happen with me. Plus I like buying things. Music wise, mainly use Spotify and buy from itunes if needs be.

 

Also, I like being up here on my moral high ground. The view is stunning.

[Dan_Dare]

I admit to downloading illegally but I definitely do it less these days. I use Spotify for most of my music nowadays and if I download it's usually just because I can't take a spotify album over to a friend's to play them some tunes.

 

Soon as I can afford it I'm going totally legal. I'm starting to seriously disagree with the justifications of pirates. Their arguments are usually self agrandising, deluded shit.

[Goafer]

I think that's the main problem for me - they don't cost a pittance, an album from iTunes costs just about the same as a regular CD, and you don't get the feel of a hard copy with the artwork and all that (their new vinyl LP thing is just as crappy).

 

I was mainly referring to the way I use iTunes. I buy the physical CD when it's an album and use iTunes for the odd song that I like, but don't want to go the whole hog and get the album. That's only 3 or 4 songs a month, which is a pittence to me. I could go the illegal route, but when it's a case of £4 spread over a month, it's just not worth the hassle of finding the illegal track when I could just fire up iTunes and get it for 79p.

 

Also, I like being up here on my moral high ground. The view is stunning.

 

Isn't it just? The wind in my luscious hair, people on the ground think I'm Fabio...

 

 

...or Rose West.

[Molly]

 

Had to be done.

[Wesley]

quick aside (I'll get back to this after a good sleep it's a decent thread)

 

the radiohead thing didn't work. The band have said they wouldn't do it again.

 

Really?

 

(Taken from Wikipedia): "In October 2008, a report from Warner Chappell revealed that although most people paid nothing for the download, pre-release sales were more profitable than the total money from sales of Hail to the Thief."

 

Wiki source: http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444

 

(I can't get on the source website at the moment, internet being crap.)

[ReZourceman]

 

Had to be done.

 

Simply as good as comedy gets.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I might as well admit it: I download illegally once in a while. I have no moral justifications, no good arguments - no excuses. It's just so friggin' easy that I can't help it.

[Platty]

I don't really download music, purely beacuse I like buying the physical album. I like having it in my hand, with the artwork and booklet. It's a weird obsession of mine, I probably buy 5 or so albums a month, I also buy Vinyl versions of albums too and I don't even have a Record player. If I see the words special or limited editions I have to buy.

 

I occasionally may download the odd rare track, live or covers etc which you quite simply can't buy. For example I have downloaded the entire back catalogue and sessions from the Libertines. I have all the albums that are available to buy but this was offered on Pete's website french dog blues and included random sessions, live, solo, and all sorts so I took full advantage. It's stuff like that which you will never be able to buy.

 

What about artists like Arctic Monkeys? They seem to be doing alright after starting out on myspace and users file sharing their music around a year before they released an album.

 

Like a lot of people I do use Last.fm and Spotify which I think are amazing.

 

I think people need to understand file sharing more before making statements like "ban them all from the internets". Annoys the hell out of me.

 

TV shows are the same. Why wait 2 years for something to apear on UK tv when you can download it a day after it's been shown in America? Sky got the right idea with LOST. They showed new episodes 4 days after they aired in America. Unlike channel 4....

Edited September 26, 2009 by Platty

[Ten10]

 

 

End of debate: http://downhillbattle.org/reasons/index.html