Illegal Downloading - For or Against?

Wurly

Imagine our ability to download illegally was taken away overnight. How would you feel about this?

On the one hand, it would suck because we would no longer get music, film etc for free.

But then, we were never actually entitled to get this stuff for free anyway. I know of many bands who cannot make a cent from releasing their music due to illegal downloading. They spend lots of money in studios etc getting their works recorded, only to be forced to release the end product for free. Surely this isn't very fair. Why shouldn't an artist be paid for their work?

Some people liken illegal downloading to copying tapes or CD's. But this is not very accurate. If I copy a CD for someone, I can only realistically give that CD to family/friends or people I know. But with illegal downloading, the whole world can effectively get that CD if it wants.

Others give out about already rich artists, saying they have enough money. But what about the new bands out there, trying to carve their way into the music industry? And... even if Bono et al are minted, surely that in itself still doesn't give us the right to steal from them.

I am interested to hear your views on this. Sure, illegal downloading is certainly convenient for us AND it's free.

But it is really hurting the arts. Any study will tell you that. The figures are there which show how much illegal downloading costs the industry per year. 20 billion in the US alone every year.

Imagine you went to work every day, only for people to steal your wages at the end of the week? Fair?

So, if illegal downloading was shut down overnight, would you be for it in terms of it allowing artists to create the music that you like because they have the means to do it? Or would you be against it because your illegal 'right' to 'free' music was taken away?

bbam

I just call it downloading.
Makes it fine then.

jimgoose

Continue illegal downloading

I don't download illegally, simply because it is simply not fair moxy to take and use the product of someone else's work without compensating them. Bad enough the blasted gummint doing that.

Tzardine

I have no problem with it. Not seen it affect the musicians / actors yet.

I will however pay for something though if it is easily available and at the right price. ex I will rent a movie on Itunes.

Some shows that are not available here so I see no problem at all in downloading through "alternative" methods.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I don't download, I just stream everything. More legal, I suppose, but still morally grey. That said, the stuff I do listen to or watch is usually very mainstream and they're not going to miss anything.

Maximus Alexander

Some things are not available for legal purchase in some territories, or can only be gotten at extortionate prices. Until content providers sort this out, illegal downloading is not going to be curtailed.

Services like Netflix and Spotify have made it pretty obvious that if you offer media reasonable prices and make it easily accessible, people will pay you.

ElKavo

Used to do it, then my isp called me and said it was illegal and file sharing not allowed on their network. Don't do it anymore... Took the hint!:P Need new isp who are a bit more lenient.

jester77

I've no problem downloading content legally. But when it's not made available to legally download, then what other alternative is there?

Lenin Skynard

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I don't download, I just stream everything. More legal, I suppose, but still morally grey.

It's exactly the same. It's still downloaded to a folder when you stream it. No legal or moral difference at all.

Lars Ulrich can only afford one wild ostrich egg for breakfast now instead of the two he used to have during the entersandman days. All because of these morally reprehensible scoundrels!

pundy

i sell music on itunes and online on other places, and i'm totally FOR illegal downloading. Arts should be free to all. you shouldnt have to pay for film, music, books etc... it's ridiculous.

Tzardine

pundy wrote: »

i sell music on itunes and online on other places, and i'm totally FOR illegal downloading. Arts should be free to all. you shouldnt have to pay for film, music, books etc... it's ridiculous.

Why are you charging for it so.

HighClass

I download most my music if it's by a band/artist who are already selling 100k+ first week, it's not going to hurt their pockets, if I download the album and I really like it I will buy it though. But unsigned or smaller bands/artists who don't get massive sales or sell their music through bandcamp I always pay for it.

jimgoose

Continue illegal downloading

pundy wrote: »

i sell music on itunes and online on other places, and i'm totally FOR illegal downloading. Arts should be free to all. you shouldnt have to pay for film, music, books etc... it's ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you not think a person who produces books/films/music full-time should be entitled to make his or her wages out of it, at least? I take exactly the same view of this as I do of some poor bastard out in Bongoland breaking his back sixteen hours a day growing, for example coffee. If he can't at least make enough to give his wife and kids a half-decent life by local standards, that is not cool.

thomas anderson.

I wouldnt pay to go see most of the movies I see. Probably just wait for them to be on tv.

With that said, because I can download movies for free, I get to see the most amazing movies that would never reach the cinema or even be on tv. I can download all my tvs shows and watch what I want when I want instead. Ever scan through the channels offered on a basic TV subscription???? nothing but reality shows, fat shows, cooking shows and repeats with ads every 10 minutes.

smileyj1987

Most bands should do what iron maiden did . They saw there was record numbers of people downloading their music illegally in South America and they went and toured South America and made money from it . I think big bands should follow suit too .

m.rollingstone.com/music/news/iron-maiden-using-bittorrent-analytics-to-plot-tours-20131226

csallmighty

It doesn't bother me when it's music or video released by a big label that's already worth billions.

DesperateDan

Continue illegal downloading

I would be for it, despite the fact that I download regularly. I never download games or music (I pay for Spotify and find it much more convenient than bothering to download an album I want, and great for discovering new music etc.).

In fact really the only stuff I download is new or missed US shows generally not aired here (UPC so no Sky Atlantic), and movies I don't care enough about to go see in the cinema. If downloading stopped tomorrow, Netflix would need to seriously up it's game and match the US version otherwise we'd all proxy it.

stimpson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

SteelyDanJalapeno

Get out of here IMRO!

Tzardine

Lol that was a great episode

Caliden

Had a friend recently ask me to help her buy something called 'Insanity' which was basically a set of fitness DVD's.

Tried Amazon and other websites (it was 200 euro and she was ready to pay it) but each one of them wouldn't deliver to Ireland.
Needless to say I told her to come back in 40 minutes and she would have it for free.


People will pay what they think an item is worth and if it's readily/easily available (see Netflix / Spotify)

pundy

Tzardine wrote: »

Why are you charging for it so.

the record label i'm on release it to those sites. i usually give away at least one song out of the three or four per e,p on my facebook or soundcloud or wherever... surprisingly, it entices people to go ahead and buy the rest of it then - sometimes along with the song they already downloaded for free.

WellThen?

Why the hell would you go out and buy something if it is available free? Because the "poor artists" aren't making the amount they used to? Good. They can get up an tour. There are many bands that would not be recognized now if it weren't for downloading. Not as many people would of gone out and bought new stuff and paid money incase it was rubbish, now you can just listen.

krudler

I use netflix and spotify and have bought stuff on itunes, I download tv alright and would replace movies I already own in HD or whatever, some films I've bought multiple times in multiple formats over the years so if its not on netflix I have no bother downloading a HD version of something.

pundy

jimgoose wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous? Do you not think a person who produces books/films/music full-time should be entitled to make his or her wages out of it, at least? I take exactly the same view of this as I do of some poor bastard out in Bongoland breaking his back sixteen hours a day growing, for example coffee. If he can't at least make enough to give his wife and kids a half-decent life by local standards, that is not cool.

well then they shouldnt be TRYING to make money off it.

if nobody is buying it, then it means it must be sh!te, or the person who wants to make money from it isnt putting in enough of their own money to publicise their latest release or whatever. you certainly can't blame potential fans who download "illegally" for you not making money from sales of your music, you're only hurting any potential sales for the future that way

chakotha

I don't download music after being a bit shocked at the ease with which I could download an entire discography and not even listen to it.

jane82

The industry made music and film so disposeable that Im not gonna pay for something that I cant even touch. Music used to come in a big cardboard package with all sorts of magic about it.
Effort went into it. The only thing I bought this year was that Roary Gallagher boxset novella thing. Amazing.
I have downloaded illegally everything else and Im a regular music listener.

RangeR

Continue illegal downloading

WellThen? wrote: »

Why the hell would you go out and buy something if it is available free?

Sometimes, just sometimes, because it's the right thing to do.

KyussBishop

The artists and content providers have had 20 years to reform their broken business model now, with no sign of industrywide change coming even now - most of them (big studios and distributors) have a really shítty ethical history, towards both customers and artists, so I'm reluctant to ever give them a cent.

So, artists and content providers need to get with the times - I'll pay for whatever is provided to me in an easy, non-customer-shafting way, but if I find myself having to waste time or have an unnecessary delay getting something, or if I find myself questioning the ethical history of a company, I'll just spend a few minutes typing what I want into TPB and have it 10 minutes later.

Make it easy for me to give my money to you, and get your content, or feck off.

Tiddlypeeps

Wurly wrote: »

But then, we were never actually entitled to get this stuff for free anyway. I know of many bands who cannot make a cent from releasing their music due to illegal downloading. They spend lots of money in studios etc getting their works recorded, only to be forced to release the end product for free. Surely this isn't very fair. Why shouldn't an artist be paid for their work?

If an artist is good then they will be paid for their work. If they are not being paid it's because there is nobody that is willing to pay them. Illegal downloading is not causing them to lose any money.

It actually works the other way around. Indie entertainment, especially music, has seen a huge boost since the internet became readily accessible to the masses. It used to be impossible to get your stuff in front of people without a label (who take 99% of the profits). Now artists can get most of the profits for themselves. This comes from exposure they wouldn't have otherwise received. People can try them for free before they give them any money, in the form of seeing them live or paying for them on iTunes. This free trial was typically in the form of hearing them on the radio, but since you need a large label to make this happen it was previously very difficult for someone to try out an indie band before committing to give them money.

Neil Gaiman often speaks out about this. His initial reaction to torrenting was that he was being stolen from, until he noticed it was actual causing an increase in the sales of his comics. http://comicsalliance.com/neil-gaiman-piracy-lending-books/

I'm not making any claims about weather it's right or wrong to download something illegally. I am simply stating that it is untrue that it takes money out of the pockets of deserving artists.

Vinz Mesrine

I don't download anywhere near the amount of music I used to, mainly because there has been a serious decline in music over the last few years IMO. I have bought 2 albums in the last 5+ years, both by Jake Bugg.

I do download a lot of TV shows however, mainly because they air in the states a long time before we get them here. I also pay a netflix subscription every month.

I think I download 2/3 movies every week because I don't have the time to get to the cinema anymore, and I can't afford the extortionate prices that often either. I also own 500+ dvds / bluray so have definitely paid enough over the years.

All this and I'm a HMV employee

Penn

I'm for illegal downloading, mostly because as others have said, some shows etc that you want aren't available over here. With American TV shows like Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy etc, it's commonplace that the newest season of those is airing on US television while the previous season is only just being released here on dvd. Just a few minutes ago I went onto Amazon to order Archer Season 4 and it's not even released on Region 2 dvd yet, even though Season 5 is airing in America.

Even when I do download stuff, I still tend to buy a lot of it on dvd when it is released, or download one season of an older show and if it's good, buy the full boxset or whatever. Just today I got an Amazon delivery of a few dvds I'd ordered, and I'm signed up for Netflix. But if entertainment companies don't want people downloading stuff, make it easier and quicker for them to be able to buy it.

As for music, most albums I download are ones that I'd never buy in the first place. But if you download them for free, chances are you might like the band, which means you might buy their next album, or when they're playing a gig you're far more likely to go and see them.

To me, that's basically what downloading is; it's an advertisement for your product. I download a tv show or film and I like it, I'll buy the dvd. I download an album and I like it, I might go to their concert. The only other option for some of it is consider whether or not to spend €20-30 on something you have no idea if you'll like or not, and most people simply wouldn't do that.

pundy

RangeR wrote: »

Sometimes, just sometimes, because it's the right thing to do.

as someone who actually sells their music online, i can tell you now that the artist (most of the time) wont care about online sales anyway. the money is in touring and playing gigs. not in sales of records/downloads anymore.

so if you want to "do the right thing" you have to show up to the gigs.

Iwasfrozen

Continue illegal downloading

pundy wrote: »

i sell music on itunes and online on other places, and i'm totally FOR illegal downloading. Arts should be free to all. you shouldnt have to pay for film, music, books etc... it's ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you have to pay for films, music, books etc. Do you believe there are no costs of production associated with any of these?

jimgoose

Continue illegal downloading

pundy wrote: »

well then they shouldnt be TRYING to make money off it.

if nobody is buying it, then it means it must be sh!te, or the person who wants to make money from it isnt putting in enough of their own money to publicise their latest release or whatever. you certainly can't blame potential fans who download "illegally" for you not making money from sales of your music, you're only hurting any potential sales for the future that way

I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything, and I don't give a rat's patootie who makes money. I am merely setting out my own personal view of using the product of other people's work without compensating them. Live long, and prosper. :cool:

pundy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why shouldn't you have to pay for films, music, books etc. Do you believe there are no costs of production associated with any of these?

i KNOW there arent much in the way of production costs - i'm a producer.
yes, initially, when you want to get into it, and you have to buy equipment/computers/monitors etc... then yes, thats a bit of a cost, but when it's up and running and you are signed to a label that releases your new music when it's made -then they deal with the cost of distribution, and not the artist. the artist will get a cut of the profits made (in my case i get a 48% cut of any profits made).

online sales dont mean a thing. if you are good, you'll be noticed and will make a few bob, if not, then you should give up and try something else.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

anncoates

Can see both sides.

I'm old enough to have been an avid music collector before digital music and spent a great deal of money of vinyl and then CDs most of which I still have.

These days I wouldn't spend as much on music but i use paid streaming and a mix of illegal/legal downloading to identify things that I'd like to buy.

The music industry needs to wake up to the fact that the old practices whereby they fleeced thousands and thousands of pounds from people like me is over.

Similarly, while I like to see artists getting rewarded for what they do, making music shouldn't be completely about money. Some of the music I loved most in my life was made by young people that got together, made a few tunes and disappeared: House, Punk, Northern Soul, 60s Psych and Garage, Mod etc. I don't think less direct revenue from music streaming and the like will neceassirly kill good music

WellThen?

RangeR wrote: »

Sometimes, just sometimes, because it's the right thing to do.

There are many other issues i would agree with you on that statement, however this isn't one of them. There are many other ways for music company's and artists to make their cash. Really not an industry i would feel sorry for.

pundy

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything, and I don't give a rat's patootie who makes money. I am merely setting out my own personal view of using the product of other people's work without compensating them. Live long, and prosper. :cool:

but, it's nonsense, you are talking to someone who produces this type of work and doesnt make much at all from online sales. i expect not to make money from this, and if i wanted to make money from my work, then i would tour it, and i would make sure people got to know it that way - in turn, boosting sales online and also reaping the rewards from ticket sales or a pay cheque for playing somewhere.

but i see what you are saying, and yes, i would agree with you - IF it's a company or someone who is using your work, say for an advertisement or something to promote their own commercial interest, then yes, that would bother me.

but, joe soap downloading my tunes for free off an illegal site, i say YES go ahead, it's good for me as a producer to get my name out, and i'm happy that people are listening to it and liking it enough to download - even if i dont make money from it that way.

commercial use of it in some way - BAD
normal person listening to it for themselves - GOOD

ThirdMan

Continue illegal downloading

I download illegally, but I still buy CDs and vinyl. Stuff that I don't really listen to gets deleted eventually, while the stuff that I love gets purchased in one format or another. There's always gonna be illegal downloading, but I do feel that things are changing, at least amongst certain groups of people. There's such an appetite for vinyl out there right now. I'm not the only one that feels alienated by the commodification of everything in the digital sphere. Vinyl is expensive, so you feel compelled to really listen to. After that it draws you in. You take in the artwork, read the lyrics, etc. My favourite albums over the past 10 years have been ones I bought on vinyl, and that's only because they're the ones that I've truly handed myself over to.

By the way, I'm not advocating that everyones start buying vinyl. The world has moved on from it. But it's still an option for people that want to invest in a physical product.

The Narrator

The top 5% of music artists earn 95% of the money.
So forgive me if I don't weep that little Bono only has the 3 Bugattis, instead of 4 or 5....

A lot of content would become unavailable if it wasn't for downloading, obscure films etc. from the 70's & 80's. With thw popularity of Netflix etc., I think it's starting become the case anywyay, which is a shame.

Same day world wide release, available at a reasonable price please...

Zillah

Wurly wrote: »

I know of many bands who cannot make a cent from releasing their music due to illegal downloading. They spend lots of money in studios etc getting their works recorded, only to be forced to release the end product for free. Surely this isn't very fair. Why shouldn't an artist be paid for their work?

Yeah, pretty sure these bands just aren't good enough. A certain percentage of people will pirate the music, and the rest with pay for it. There's no band so in demand that their music is being pirated en mass without there being a proportionate group paying for it.

They're making excuses.

Wurly wrote: »

But it is really hurting the arts. Any study will tell you that. The figures are there which show how much illegal downloading costs the industry per year. 20 billion in the US alone every year.

I'm convinced these numbers are absolute voodoo. 95% of what I download I would just never get if it wasn't available to pirate. Do they imagine I would be paying full price for all of these things if it wasn't an option?

I say this as a content creator. Piracy is real and isn't going away, and arguably does no harm to the artist's income. The industry needs to adapt. It already is, slowly: Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Spotify - there are alternative, and superior revenue streams for creators outside the archaic system a small percentage of dinosaurs are clinging onto.

ALiasEX

Even Liz Bales of the Industry Trust For IP Awareness has said "We know that the people that infringe content are the most valuable audience group"

It's a trick though http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-movie-industrys-valuable-customers-140304/

Iwasfrozen

Continue illegal downloading

KyussBishop wrote: »

The artists and content providers have had 20 years to reform their broken business model now, with no sign of industrywide change coming even now - most of them (big studios and distributors) have a really shítty ethical history, towards both customers and artists, so I'm reluctant to ever give them a cent.

So, artists and content providers need to get with the times - I'll pay for whatever is provided to me in an easy, non-customer-shafting way, but if I find myself having to waste time or have an unnecessary delay getting something, or if I find myself questioning the ethical history of a company, I'll just spend a few minutes typing what I want into TPB and have it 10 minutes later.

Make it easy for me to give my money to you, and get your content, or feck off.

Why should any company have to tolerate people stealing from them in the name of "getting with the times?" Since when did we give thieves the right to dictate the mark of progression.

The problem is opportunity. Normally in any business model the company sets the price and the ball is then in the consumers court as he or she decides whether or not to buy the item the company is selling. But now we have a situation where instead of instead of having the option to pay a fair price of not receive the product the consumer can just steal the good for free from a file sharing site. This drives the price of the good far below market price and unfairly impacts profits in the music industry.

What I recommend is initiation of a ruthless and efficient programme of shutting down file sharing sites across the US and EU and a merciless crack down on individuals caught with illegal material on their computers. These laws exist now but are not being widely enforced. If a person knows they run the risk of going to jail for a length period they'll think twice before they download.

ThirdMan

Continue illegal downloading

The Narrator wrote: »

A lot of content would become unavailable if it wasn't for downloading, obscure films etc. from the 70's & 80's.

Fully agree with you here. My interest in foreign movies came about because I was able to sample them for free. There's no way I would have taken a chance on them otherwise because the DVDs are so expensive. But now that I've developed an interest I regularly buy them on BluRay or DVD, or see them in places like the IFI. In fact, the same is true of jazz, comics, or anything that I thought I might be interested in but couldn't afford to find out. But now I fork out the cash for them. I ended up buying an Italian opera on BluRay yesterday, which is a step into the unknown for me. But I only done that because I was watching bootleg copies on YouTube for the past two weeks.

Setun

It's a very complex situation, and it's not as easy being simply for/against.

On the one hand, the recording industry has been essentially shafting music producers for quite a while - especially those who maybe had one or two hits, and then were dropped before even being given a chance to develop. Many of these artists would have limited control over the song after recording, and may receive very limited royalties. On the other hand, the darlings of the record industry -U2, Coldplay, Lada Gaga, One Direction etc - who are pretty much guaranteed to beat records on album launches are of course treated very well and probably given excellent terms on royalties, advances etc. In this way, it could be argued that the industry has done more damage to artists and contributed to the homogeneity of pop music. When it comes to illegal downloading, neither category of artists would appear to suffer very much, as they either don't/barely profit from record sales, or they have already profited so much it doesn't particularly matter anymore.

Spotify is basically institutionalised form of illegal downloading - unless you're Daft Punk, the money you make off a year's worth of streaming is negligible.

Iwasfrozen

Continue illegal downloading

pundy wrote: »

i KNOW there arent much in the way of production costs - i'm a producer.
yes, initially, when you want to get into it, and you have to buy equipment/computers/monitors etc... then yes, thats a bit of a cost, but when it's up and running and you are signed to a label that releases your new music when it's made -then they deal with the cost of distribution, and not the artist. the artist will get a cut of the profits made (in my case i get a 48% cut of any profits made).

online sales dont mean a thing. if you are good, you'll be noticed and will make a few bob, if not, then you should give up and try something else.

No production costs? What about labor costs? What about studio costs? The managers costs? The video costs?

Tiddlypeeps

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What I recommend is initiation of a ruthless and efficient programme of shutting down file sharing sites across the US and EU and a merciless crack down on individuals caught with illegal material on their computers. These laws exist now but are not being widely enforced. If a person knows they run the risk of going to jail for a length period they'll think twice before they download.

LOL! Because that's worked so well in the past! Only people truly ignorant of how the internet work make this suggestion.

The only way it would be possible to actually pull that off would be to shut down all ISP's and replace them with a sort of television style system where people only have access to a very small number of heavily regulated sites. This is never going to happen tho.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Gbear

It's not as straight forward as it sounds.

If I steal the usual example of a car, I'm taking a car without paying for it but I'm also stopping the car salesmen from selling it later.
A car has value. When you take one you effectively steal it twice.

With digital media, the individual item doesn't really have any value - the idea is what has value, whether its a game, a movie, a poem or music. When you steal it you stop the company from being able to sell it to you but that's it. They have an infinite number of other copies so it doesn't affect their business otherwise.

That's not to say that it's necessarily ok to steal digital media, but it's not the same as stealing physical media and shouldn't be treated as such.

Wurly wrote: »

Some people liken illegal downloading to copying tapes or CD's. But this is not very accurate. If I copy a CD for someone, I can only realistically give that CD to family/friends or people I know. But with illegal downloading, the whole world can effectively get that CD if it wants.

The speed of transmission isn't important with illegal downloading. What's important is the fact that it's digital.

I didn't buy the vast majority of the music I own. Neither did I download most of it illegally.
The vast majority was taken from the cd collections and digital libraries of my friends and family and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that.
What most facilitated that wasn't the internet but mobile storage devices (an mp3 players in this case) which allows me to go around hoovering up other people's music.

The internet is a handy medium to transmit data but that's all it is in relation to this question. What's important is that there are an infinite number of copies that can be freely exchanged without interference from other people.

I think companies are just going to have to accept that they can't stop people freely exchanging digital media, whether it's on the internet or not, and are going to have to find other ways to make money.
I see this more as businesses (understandably) trying to fight against part of their businesses becoming obsolete.