UPC victory in piracy case

Overature · 11-10-2010 6:18pm

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

I never download music as it's robbing the artists of valuable income.

I wonder just how much of the cash actually goes to the artist, the majority goes to the record companys. and i dont see a difference between downloading tv shows and music, its both stealing. i download both

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 6:26pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Here's some facts for you.

a) People who download music illegally spend more on music than people who don't.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

b) Before the advent of Napster 97% of the acts on a major label made less than $600 a year from it. "And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-content-cory-doctorow

The old model is dead, and good riddance to it. I want talented artists to get paid for what they do, but that clearly wasn't happening under the old system. The new system we're moving into will produce less superstars, but is far better suited to supporting far more acts with a living wage. Filesharing has only helped smaller artists develop some recognition without the help of a label's infrastructure or PR budget - the only ones it hurt have been the big established names who are too closely tied into the old static major label model to adapt.

agree 100%

not many people here are arguing against downloading. the problems arise with the idiots who download all day and never buy music.

if you buy your music then you can download all day long as far as im concerned. there are very few people, even within the industry, that will support the major labels and their bullying tactics. most of us just want to be able to feed ourselves and our family from the work we put in.

ronkmonster · 11-10-2010 6:26pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you can buy wav files from all music stores online for years now. wav is cd quality.

I can't see that option for Itunes, the biggest online music store

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 6:28pm

Overature wrote: »

I wonder just how much of the cash actually goes to the artist,

very little unfortunatly. exactly why its best to buy direct from artist websites if at all possible.

zenno · 11-10-2010 6:29pm

that judge needs a good patt on the back a good victory to internet users.

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 6:31pm

ronkmonster wrote: »

I can't see that option for Itunes, the biggest online music store

stop using itunes. they offer crap quality and the artist receives next to nothing.

there's much better online stores out there that offer a variety of differant formats.

Jakob · 11-10-2010 6:40pm

I use this site, not sure how legal or illegal it is ( it's called legalsounds ) but it is excellent value at 99 cents an album (roughly)

http://www.legalsounds.com/

Trevor451 · 11-10-2010 6:45pm

Fair play to UPC for not giving in

. Face it nobody buys music anymore because it is a complete rip off. A very litte percentage of the money on the album sold goes to the artist anyway :rolleyes:

jill_valentine · 11-10-2010 6:49pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

very little unfortunatly. exactly why its best to buy direct from artist websites if at all possible.

Indeed.

Apologies for using the example I'm most familiar with, but the best solution to this problem that I've heard of was how Arcade Fire dealt with it. They're a fairly recent band, they've grown up taking filesharing for granted, and they're quite happy to acknowledge that they've gained more than they've lost from it.

For The Suburbs release, rather than trying to penalize people for downloading leaks or guilt them out of doing it, they offered them an incentive to buy direct from them:

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/08/arcade-fire-rethinks-album-format-tells-no-one.html

Basically, the version that comes through their website - and only that version - comes with a built-in slideshow featuring the song lyrics, photos, artwork, youtubes and wiki links chosen and occasionally updated by the band themselves. It leads you on a huge easter egg hunt all over the internet and offers a lot of background on the thought processes going on underneath, without over explaining anything. It's cheap and easy to implement, fun to do, it genuinely adds to the experience of the album and it offers the artist a new channel to communicate with the listener.

Most importantly, it encourages people to buy right from the source, without looking like jerks - carrot rather than stick. I don't know why nobody thought of it sooner, but I hope many more follow suit in future. Filesharing is not going anywhere, and the sooner labels and artists stop trying to bail out a sinking ship with a bucket and get in the rescue helicopters, the better.

maccored · 11-10-2010 6:50pm

this thread outlines the issues I think - yes music is art (i make a lot of it myself and make no money, nor want to make money from) but for those who wish to be able to do it full time, they need to earn a crust from it.

the internet is brilliant and downloading is here, pure and simple - it cant be stopped and theres no point in trying to sue people etc over it. there has to be new ways of doing things that arent all about downloading everything and contributing nothing.

I agree though that the major labels have cornered the market for far too long making far too much money, but that doesnt justify free for all downloads. there has to be some form of compromise or new market model (which probably includes giving away free stuff)

maccored · 11-10-2010 6:54pm

jtsuited wrote: »

I'm releasing vinyl from now on (and much of it will be vinyl only). You wanna protect your art, make vinyl the medium of choice for your music.

(no idea if that image is showing, cus I cant see it)

jill_valentine · 11-10-2010 7:22pm

jtsuited wrote: »

I'm releasing vinyl from now on (and much of it will be vinyl only). You wanna protect your art, make vinyl the medium of choice for your music.

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Bet someone somewhere will convert it to mp3 and upload it to a torrent site.

Yes. A number of recent high-profile and otherwise fiercely well-guarded releases leaked via vinyl rips first. The shipping and sale of vinyl tends to be a bit more... indie, I suppose, and bit more slapdash as a result.

splitrmx · 11-10-2010 7:30pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

and eventually you'll have no music of any quality left to listen to.

Do you honestly believe that music of good quality can only exist with the old standard model of large labels selling CDs? Good music existed long before the ability to record audio was invented. The demise of a system where people pay for recordings of music won't result in disappearance of music.

blubloblu · 11-10-2010 7:41pm

As a musician, you should be against this shoddy "solution" which solves nothing whilst pissing over a whole load of laws and rights, all the while not providing any income for you. IRMA do not represent you. They represent Sony, Warner, Universal and EMI (and their shareholders).

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 7:47pm

splitrmx wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that music of good quality can only exist with the old standard model of large labels selling CDs? Good music existed long before the ability to record audio was invented. The demise of a system where people pay for recordings of music won't result in disappearance of music.

where exactly did you read me saying this?

try not to put words into my mouth to argue your point. i never said the current business model was the only way. as an indie label owner i believe the current model is a sham.

but in reality it doesnt matter what business model exists at any given time. the simple fact is that professional musicians NEED to be paid for their work. whether it be royalties on recordings, session work, whatever.

in 20 years there might be totally differant way for musicians/producers/engineers/artists to get paid but the simple fact is that if an artist cannot feed themselves or their family then they will have to turn to other ways of earning an income.

you can argue a utopia all you want but there is no escaping the fact that people need to eat.

unless you would like your favourite artists to die for your enjoyment?

DeVore · 11-10-2010 7:50pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Because he was paid to. It was a commission that he worked on for 3 years. Seriously it's not that hard to guess…

Correct. Thats the answer I was looking for.

He was paid in advance by a patron. The model of "middlemen" taking up to 93% of the money of the sale of your music is only about 50 years old. Prior to that wealthy people would pay an artist to create great art for them.

Today that might not be possible but look at it this way, if your band got 150,000 fans (which isnt a great deal considering the world is now your audience) and each paid a euro for everything you produced for year. Thats earnings of 150,000 euros. Even split between a band, thats a damned fine salary to do nothing but what you love...

The internet is like an alien invader, it eats the fat ones first and Sony, Universal and others have become so very very fat off of musicians. Their deaths will stop them producing 10 global superstars a year earning 10's of millions and that wealth will spread far and wide supporting hundreds if not thousands of bands and artists chosen by a meritocracy.

DeV.

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 7:57pm

DeVore wrote: »

Correct. Thats the answer I was looking for.

He was paid in advance by a patron. The model of "middlemen" taking up to 93% of the money of the sale of your music is only about 50 years old. Prior to that wealthy people would pay an artist to create great art for them.

Today that might not be possible but look at it this way, if your band got 150,000 fans (which isnt a great deal considering the world is now your audience) and each paid a euro for everything you produced for year. Thats earnings of 150,000 euros. Even split between a band, thats a damned fine salary to do nothing but what you love...

The internet is like an alien invader, it eats the fat ones first and Sony, Universal and others have become so very very fat off of musicians. Their deaths will stop them producing 10 global superstars a year earning 10's of millions and that wealth will spread far and wide supporting hundreds if not thousands of bands and artists chosen by a meritocracy.

DeV.

thats a lovely idea but it doesnt really take into consideration that most people dont seem to give a crap what they download for free. they'll just as easily rip off an indie label putting out a run of 1000 7" vinyls as they will a major label.

so in reality its the majors, with their already fattened bank accounts, that will survive while the small indie goes under.

the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.

jill_valentine · 11-10-2010 8:06pm

I suspect the folks at Merge and labels like them might disagree with that suggestion, given that they just got a Billboard #1.

This article with David Byrne is well worth reading:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 8:17pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

I suspect the folks at Merge and labels like them might disagree with that suggestion, given that they just got a Billboard #1.

This article with David Byrne is well worth reading:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

if you're talking about the american label merge, then the arguement really has no place in a discussion about an irish ISP and involving irish artists. merge are a label that started in a time when money was getting thrown around and despite the fact that they stayed independent, they certainly dont fall into the "small indie" category. infact they had a US number 1 album as far back as early 2004 if i remember correctly. merge are a long way from being regarded as a "small indie" in the sense that we would speak about.

we live in a country where it doesnt take very large sales to get a number 1 single but is close to impossible to make a dent in the market elsewhere.

if you want to talk real world in relation to our industry over here take a look at someone like the richter collective. what if they made a loss on their next 3/4 releases due to illegal sharing? i would take a guess that, unless they're sitting on a pile of cash, they'd have to call it a day.

small indie labels are mostly operating on a release by release basis, breaking even can even by enough reason to put you out of business.

zenno · 11-10-2010 8:31pm

there are a couple of artists i like so if i like their album i will pay online to them as i have recently done. but theres so much garbage music bands out there now i wouldn't even download them even though i could get them free. but i will always support my favourite music bands.

i'm just glad that these corrupt illegal music companies have been denied from ripping off internet users and they can go back under the rock they came out from imo good riddance to them. irish law has won the day today.

DeVore · 11-10-2010 8:44pm

I know its video (machanime actually) but Red vs Blue (www.redvsblue.com) started out as a bunch of drunken gamers voicing over video recording in Halo. They grew a fanbase and 4 series later almost all of them have quit their jobs and do this full time now from the VERY SAME model I outlined above.

The trick is that you have to be great at it and produce something that really inspires people. 150,000 people who will pay you 1 Euro for a year. Thats your goal and its not all that hard with some hard graft (yes, you still have to work building a fanbase).

Hopefully 1,000,000 people will rip your stuff off and spread it around because of all the people it subsequently hits some of them will become patrons. Red Vs Blue went super huge because it got ripped off left right and centre and everyone was sending it to their mates. They built a fanbase of loyal followers who not only paid a euro for a season, they bought DVD's by the 1000's and t-shirts and a ton of other stuff.

So dont tell me it wont work because it has and it will. But you have to be great at what you do and you have to work at it. No one said it would be easy.

DeV.

DeVore · 11-10-2010 8:46pm

ps: google Ronald Jenkies to see someone who has done this perfectly. Awesome story of a guy and his piano playing anything BUT piano concertos

DeV.

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 9:11pm

DeVore wrote: »

I know its video (machanime actually) but Red vs Blue (www.redvsblue.com) started out as a bunch of drunken gamers voicing over video recording in Halo. They grew a fanbase and 4 series later almost all of them have quit their jobs and do this full time now from the VERY SAME model I outlined above.

The trick is that you have to be great at it and produce something that really inspires people. 150,000 people who will pay you 1 Euro for a year. Thats your goal and its not all that hard with some hard graft (yes, you still have to work building a fanbase).

Hopefully 1,000,000 people will rip your stuff off and spread it around because of all the people it subsequently hits some of them will become patrons. Red Vs Blue went super huge because it got ripped off left right and centre and everyone was sending it to their mates. They built a fanbase of loyal followers who not only paid a euro for a season, they bought DVD's by the 1000's and t-shirts and a ton of other stuff.

So dont tell me it wont work because it has and it will. But you have to be great at what you do and you have to work at it. No one said it would be easy.

DeV.

im sorry but i'd have to disagree with you. this just wouldnt work as the defacto way to get music out there. the public, moan as they will, still just want music delivered in the same way.. be it cd, vinyl or digital.

we already seen it with some really talented bands trying a differant way of distributing a product and it failing miserably.

if you can show me just 1 instance of a pop genre group (indie/rock/pop/r'n'b) making a living from alternative distribution channels then ill take it back but until then i'll reiterate that its been tried and it has failed many times.

dont get me wrong, i'd love to see it work. what radiohead did was a milestone and definitly ruffled a few fat cat feathers but as a source of sustainable income it just didnt work.

ps. i do appreciate your link above and while its definitly an interesting read and concept, its not quite what we're talking here. we're talking about the recording industry in its most consumer friendly form. theres always going to be an underground movement of alternative music, i myself was heavily involved in the old squat/illegal party techno scene in the late 90's in london. the way we got music out there back then was pure guerilla tactics but it was never sustainable beyond a point.
this was because the majority of music listeners dont want to be sold music in any other way than whats most convenient to them and unfortunatly this means hmv and itunes... we saw it in this thread already, some lad didnt even know that WAV files were available to buy online because he's never ventured away from itunes!!!

kfoltman · 11-10-2010 9:15pm

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Yep very true. A legal alternative would be one of the best solutions.

7digital.ie is not bad. I'm not comfortable with paying the rip-off-consumers-and-artists oligopoly, but I'm using it instead of pirating because it's less hassle and affordable enough.

That, and accujazz.com to discover music I didn't previously know. Which is what terrestrial radio stations should be doing, but don't.

However, I'm not a good example as my apetite for new music is very limited

maccored · 11-10-2010 9:18pm

for a longtime didnt bands like crass and cardiacs live off their own alternative distro channels and labels? (wrong genre right enough)

DamagedTrax wrote: »

im sorry but i'd have to disagree with you. this just wouldnt work as the defacto way to get music out there. the public, moan as they will, still just want music delivered in the same way.. be it cd, vinyl or digital.

we already seen it with some really talented bands trying a differant way of distributing a product and it failing miserably.

if you can show me just 1 instance of a pop genre group (indie/rock/pop/r'n'b) making a living from alternative distribution channels then ill take it back but until then i'll reiterate that its been tried and it has failed many times.

dont get me wrong, i'd love to see it work. what radiohead did was a milestone and definitly ruffled a few fat cat feathers but as a source of sustainable income it just didnt work.

maccored · 11-10-2010 9:19pm

what radiohead did was a milestone and definitly ruffled a few fat cat feathers but as a source of sustainable income it just didnt work.

twas priceless advertising though

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 9:27pm

maccored wrote: »

for a longtime didnt bands like crass and cardiacs live off their own alternative distro channels and labels? (wrong genre right enough)

they did. but like you said its not the same thing really.

could you imagine some pop diva slumming it in a squat in hackney and releasing records with artwork that looks like it was done by a kid?

im sorry but sales would be zero.

the reason it worked for crass, conflict et all is that they sold to a market that was all about "the collective mind"

make no mistake, despite appearing to the contrary, those old anarcho punk labels knew exactly how to market their records to maximise sales. and their business model wasn't really that different to the majors today. it looked different and worked on a smaller scale but it was based on the same formats and concepts.

bytey · 11-10-2010 9:50pm

10 years from now , all internet will be similar to tv, ie a subscribed
licensed package of a certain number and type of websites.

its already in progress, and all will be government patrolled.

you will not be able to access sites that you do not pay a fee for
unless its sanctioned to be free.

think its impossible ?

think again .

Clanket · 11-10-2010 9:52pm

bytey wrote: »

10 years from now , all internet will be similar to tv, ie a subscribed
licensed package of a certain number and type of websites.

its already in progress, and all will be government patrolled.

you will not be able to access sites that you do not pay a fee for
unless its sanctioned to be free.

think its impossible ?

think again .

Conspiracy theories that way

>

:D

DeVore · 11-10-2010 9:53pm

bytey wrote: »

10 years from now , all internet will be similar to tv, ie a subscribed
licensed package of a certain number and type of websites.

its already in progress, and all will be government patrolled.

you will not be able to access sites that you do not pay a fee for
unless its sanctioned to be free.

think its impossible ?

think again .

This, unfortunately, is a distinct possibility. Verison and Googles new deals for "premium speed" content is the unpleasant start of it but it doesnt HAVE to be that way.

Unfortunately it doesnt HAVE to be utopia either or anything like it, it really depends on how much we stand up to the people who would like to control the internet. (Blackberry in the middle east anyone?)

DeV.

DeVore · 11-10-2010 9:58pm

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Conspiracy theories that way
> :D

Its by no means a conspiracy theory. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/google-verizon-deny-deal/

Do you think Eircom wouldnt pay Boards to refuse connections from UPC so they could say "Boards.ie, only on Eircom!". Too right they would. It would be death to us of course but hey, we would be rich... not everyone will be as smart as us

DeV.

Clanket · 11-10-2010 9:59pm

DeVore wrote: »

Oh and lol at the hypocrisy of the OP's "I download TV and films but people who download music are thieves". No, mate, you arent stealing video and tv, you're just taking something that doesnt belong to you. And not paying for it.

Somehow music is different to films and tv? oh yes, thats right, I forgot you're a musician, thats the obvious difference.

DeV.

Like I said earlier Devore, I'm not a serial downloader. I've downloaded a couple of seasons of a TV show that I now watch religiously on TV. It was and always has been shown for free on TV - I could just as easily have waited a year to record repeats - Would this have been ok in your eyes? I was just playing catch up. And I only downloaded because none of my mates had the boxset and the video shop doesn't stock it for rental.

And I'm not a musician. A wanna be one yes, but I'm far far from being anywhere near a musician

:D

Al.

bytey · 11-10-2010 10:33pm

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Conspiracy theories that way
> :D

see,
its people like you who will let this happen , because you react in this way when someone points out the inevitable reality

enjoy your internet while you can , cos pirate music will have to be posted in in envelope 10 years from now

zenno · 11-10-2010 11:28pm

bytey wrote: »

10 years from now , all internet will be similar to tv, ie a subscribed
licensed package of a certain number and type of websites.

its already in progress, and all will be government patrolled.

you will not be able to access sites that you do not pay a fee for
unless its sanctioned to be free.

think its impossible ?

think again .

if that turns out to be the case then I and most other people will just not use or pay for broadband. because of the limits to freedom of information online. tv will die off soon. no matter what you watch you are bombarded with adds and the decibels in noise as soon as adverts come on would make you half deaf the way it is now. plus the garbage that is on the idiotbox now is only for braindead people thats why i don't watch tv. if the net ever goes like this then it's bye bye to broadband and i will just find something more interesting to do.

Android 666 · 11-10-2010 11:31pm

zenno wrote: »

if that turns out to be the case then I and most other people will just not use or pay for broadband. because of the limits to freedom of information online. tv will die off soon. no matter what you watch you are bombarded with adds and the decibels in noise as soon as adverts come on would make you half deaf the way it is now. plus the garbage that is on the idiotbox now is only for braindead people thats why i don't watch tv. if the net ever goes like this then it's bye bye to broadband and i will just find something more interesting to do.

Like masturbation?

DamagedTrax · 11-10-2010 11:34pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Like masturbation?

masturbation without broadband???? :eek:

dear god man, have you lost your mind?

bytey · 11-10-2010 11:42pm

sorry , to clarify

TV and Internet will be delivered online ,
to a HD tv , with optical connection to the web .
( call it a pctv )

tv content will be website based as well.

home pcs will move to pad formats like ipad type devices sharing the main tv hub broadband

actual pcs will become more specialist ( ie like daws ) and more expensive .
all content ( web , tv ) will be paid for and controllable .

and all piracy sites blocked .

the free web is going to end - no doubt about it .

DeVore · 11-10-2010 11:51pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

masturbation without broadband???? :eek:

dear god man, have you lost your mind?

How does that even work? I mean.... without warezed h4rdc0r3 pr0n ??

And so we find ourselves back somewhat in the vicinity of what I like to refer to as "the topic"

DeV.

krd · 12-10-2010 8:03am

bytey wrote: »

the free web is going to end - no doubt about it .

What was ever "free" about the internet?

All the hippy bull**** about the internet is just that; bull****. And it usually comes from the mouths of people who are just selfish bastards who wouldn't do the slightest turn for anyone if they didn't think there was something in it for them.

You pay for the connection - people have been bilking musicians and record companies for the last decade. The internet companies have been making money on helping these people bilk.

Why should music be free? Why should computer games be free? Why should books be free? Why should an architect's drawings be free?

What gives the right to anyone to walk in off the street and photocopy an architect's drawings?

The real killer of the music industry was not the internet. It was when everyone started getting cheap CD burners. And little maggot "entrepreneurs" set up businesses selling bootleg CDs to their school mates.

Lending a CD to a school friend is one thing - making them a copy of something you've bought is not a particularly awful sin. Being a little wanker who charges €5 a copy is.

Most people have only been on the internet in the last 5 years. The original driver was free music. People DO value music - They ARE willing to pay for it. Though they don't care if it's the artists or the pirate.

Where's the "free" - the pirate is always sure to make money.

There will always be piracy, but the days of little tossers paying a monthly subscription fee to the scumbags of rapidshare (Where's the free there?) so they can download unlimited music and film are coming to an end. You'll still have little greasy bags at schools selling mp3s and CDs. But they'll probably be Cuckoo'd MP3s.

The grease bags of rapidshare are profiting from work they had no part in creating.

Now the entire media business is getting serious about piracy. Hollywood studios - have seen their revenue on DVD sales virtually vanish because the likes of Rapidshare. People want to see movies that cost millions to make - they have to pay for these films if they want these films to be made.

People want good music. Musicians and everyone else involved needs to get paid. Musicianship is as much a craft as plumber or carpenter.

A short history of copyright and piracy and technology.

Gutenburg did not invent the first printing press. They've been around for thousands of years. Just over time they've become more technologically advanced.

In the early days of printing, writers and publishers were paid - piracy was just too technologically difficult for the pirates. Books were expensive and most people could not afford them - even though there was a huge public appetite for books. Only the very wealthy could afford them.

Then along came inexpensive mechanical presses. A bit like the advent of CD burners. And there was a publishing explosion across Europe. Except it was bootleggers making all the money - and there was no law to stop them.

Eventually the publishers and the bootleggers, and all the governments of Europe did a deal. Bootleggers could continue to print the books if they paid for the right to copy the books. The copyright.

Everyone involved in the process needs to get paid. If people could just walk in off the street and take any book from Easons they liked and walked out the door without paying for it - there would be no Easons. If Easons didn't pay writers or publishers for their magazines and books there would be no magazines or books - there would be no Easons.

Internet piracy will eventually be shut down. The ISPs are in effect like Easons. If they keep allowing theft of material, there'll be none.

There will be an end to the piracy. And when it happens the internet will still be there as a great distribution channel. There will probably be a boom for small independent musicians. And the same for independent writers and film makers. We'll have better books and films - of course we'll have to pay for it - the best things in life are not free.

senordingdong · 12-10-2010 8:19am

maccored wrote: »

i reckon the internet is here and the music industry has to deal with it.

I disagree.

If tv/film and music companies are losing so much money from downloads, I think they will just stop investing so much money in these things.

Instead they will invest only in things that have huge returns with minimal risk, so expect plenty more 'X Factors', 'I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here,' stupid teen movies and plenty more Britteny Spears etc...

seanogseanog · 12-10-2010 8:26am

Well done UPC!! shame on pathetic Eircom for not even contesting the music industries challenge. No Industry should ever censor the net. I recently cleared out my CD collection and found a crappy drum and base CD from HMV that cost £28.99 Irish pounds!!!

we'd still be there if the greedy music industry had its way. There's a direct channel to your audience now as a musician. The record labels are just middle men that got screwed by advances in technology.

Forest Master · 12-10-2010 8:39am

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

Like I said earlier Devore, I'm not a serial downloader. I've downloaded a couple of seasons of a TV show that I now watch religiously on TV. It was and always has been shown for free on TV - I could just as easily have waited a year to record repeats - Would this have been ok in your eyes? I was just playing catch up. And I only downloaded because none of my mates had the boxset and the video shop doesn't stock it for rental.

And I'm not a musician. A wanna be one yes, but I'm far far from being anywhere near a musician :D

Al.

You're still a complete hypocrite. You don't even see why, do you? Those TV shows were shown on TV with commercials, which generates the revenue from their broadcast. They are then released on DVD/Bluray which you pay for. It's the EXACT same as music being played on the radio with commercials in between, and also being released on a CD which you pay for. Your logic is 100% flawed. Yes - 100%. You don't have the right to own that media for free just because it was on TV. By that logic, I can own music for free just because it was on the radio at some stage. You can't have it both ways - "video is okay to download, music isn't" - it makes no sense on any level.

And you say you're not a "serial" downloader - and you're moaning about people who are. So can you please tell me EXACTLY where the cut-off point is between "serial" and "acceptable" downloading? Please tell me exactly where the line is drawn. 3hrs of content per week is okay? 4hrs isn't, etc? Thanks in advance for your specific & well-thought-out answer.

Bi6N · 12-10-2010 9:02am

maccored wrote: »

The problem is what do you do when people stop producing that media due to not being able to make a living from producing it (since it gets downloaded for free)?

They seem to be getting along just fine. The large business groups earn too much as it is, most independant small labels/artists understand there is more money in touring and merch in this day and age.

If anything it helps solo/indepentdant artists get their media out into the world fast for no cost.

hardCopy · 12-10-2010 9:26am

Forest Master wrote: »

You're still a complete hypocrite. You don't even see why, do you? Those TV shows were shown on TV with commercials, which generates the revenue from their broadcast. They are then released on DVD/Bluray which you pay for. It's the EXACT same as music being played on the radio with commercials in between, and also being released on a CD which you pay for. Your logic is 100% flawed. Yes - 100%. You don't have the right to own that media for free just because it was on TV. By that logic, I can own music for free just because it was on the radio at some stage.

I don't think it's actually possible to affect advertising revenue unless you have a Neilsen box attached to your telly

senordingdong · 12-10-2010 9:29am

hardCopy wrote: »

I don't think it's actually possible to affect advertising revenue unless you have a Neilsen box attached to your telly

This is my understanding too.
It's also well known that the Nielson style system is greatly flawed.

And apprently there is no such system in Ireland.

maccored · 12-10-2010 9:40am

Bi6N wrote: »

They seem to be getting along just fine. The large business groups earn too much as it is, most independant small labels/artists understand there is more money in touring and merch in this day and age.

If anything it helps solo/indepentdant artists get their media out into the world fast for no cost.

So you think theres no need for a solution then, all's fine as it is? I wouldnt agree with that. this needs to be thought through from all angles and not just from the 'them and us' way of thinking.

senordingdong wrote:

If tv/film and music companies are losing so much money from downloads, I think they will just stop investing so much money in these things.

... and they'll be replaced by others, again though in some form of framework that works. theres just the problem of working out what that framework is.

there seems to be a lot of half thought out 'oh but the rich made too much money anyway' thinking going on in this thread. thats completely missing the point.

DamagedTrax · 12-10-2010 10:02am

maccored wrote: »

there seems to be a lot of half thought out 'oh but the rich made too much money anyway' thinking going on in this thread. thats completely missing the point.

i agree 100% (but maybe not for the same reasons?)

as ive already said, the larger corps are going nowhere, illegal downloads or not. the only reason that warner et all are concerned about illegal downloading is to protect their profits.

the real victim of illegal file sharing is the little guy. all you have to do is engage your brain for a minute and think of the knock on effect it has on the smaller set-ups, many of whom we have seen disappear in the last few years: bands, smaller studios, small distribution companies, small local record stores...

there is a world of differance between illegally downloading the latest BMG release and downloading a small indie release. both are stealing, make no mistake about that but people need to raise their moral noisefloor.

if you are going to keep downloading then at the very least think before you do it.

while on one hand you may be putting the smallest dent in a multinational's profit margin, on the other you may be taking food out of the mouth of someone just like yourself and that is low... very very low :mad:

Clanket · 12-10-2010 10:11am

Forest Master wrote: »

You're still a complete hypocrite. You don't even see why, do you? Those TV shows were shown on TV with commercials, which generates the revenue from their broadcast. They are then released on DVD/Bluray which you pay for. It's the EXACT same as music being played on the radio with commercials in between, and also being released on a CD which you pay for. Your logic is 100% flawed. Yes - 100%. You don't have the right to own that media for free just because it was on TV. By that logic, I can own music for free just because it was on the radio at some stage. You can't have it both ways - "video is okay to download, music isn't" - it makes no sense on any level.

And you say you're not a "serial" downloader - and you're moaning about people who are. So can you please tell me EXACTLY where the cut-off point is between "serial" and "acceptable" downloading? Please tell me exactly where the line is drawn. 3hrs of content per week is okay? 4hrs isn't, etc? Thanks in advance for your specific & well-thought-out answer.

Ok firstly Forest Master, let me ask you a question (which I'd like an answer to before I continue any discussion with you). Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?

If the answer is yes, then I do not want to have a discussion with you because you'll never see my point of view. You're just too selfish.

If the answer is no then let me explain. I did not watch some series of shows that were shown on TV in times gone past for whatever reason. So they get to season 5 and I watch a couple on TV after hearing from friends that it's a great show. I'm intrigued so I decide I'll go back and watch from Season 1. So I go to the video shop to see if I can rent it and they don't have it. So what's the alternative? Buy the boxset? The digital age is here. I do not want bulky box sets taking up room in my small apartment. I've enough of them already from times gone past. So I download to catch up. I watch the downloads and delete them once watched. I've now caught up with the TV and watch future episodes on TV. SO call me what you want, I'm contributing. You ask for the definition of "the line". It's not that easy and you know it. If everything in life was that easy the world would be a very boring place.

I always try to watch new series I've heard good things about on TV but as with most people, my life is hectic, so a lot of the time TV schedules don't suit me. In the last few years with the advent of Sky + and NTL's HD recorder, we're able to record things we don't have the time to watch. Where do you stand on that? Is that wrong?

We all know the old model is dead for both the music and film/tv businesses. Looking at them seperately the main problems are:-

Movies/TV: - People want to be able to access programmes/films when they want (on demand), at a reasonable price. The new model is emerging with RTE player/Love film etc. The sooner everything is available on demand, at a fair price, the better.

Music: It's already available on demand but people still do not think it's at a fair price. So they download for free.

You can all call me a hypocrite if you like. It's not going to change the way I am. I always respect the makers of media and contribute more than most to TV companies, broadband providers, video shops, cinemas and of course music companies.

I rarely download music. And when I do, it's only ever to see what an album from a new/obscure act is like. If I even half like if I'll buy it. If it's not for me it gets deleted immediately.

There's no easy solution to the problems of illegal downloading. But the scrotes who are downloading everything they watch/listen to without contributing anything are clearly selfish bástards with no consideration for anyone but themselves. And the people uploading everything (and I mean everything) are worse. Something needs to be done to stop this madness.

Artists need to be paid (using a fair model). The people who've said in this thread that art should be a love and not a trade are morons. I'd like to hear what they're dream job is. And how they would reconcile that to making money to survive.

And you're welcome for my specific & well-thought-out answer.

Android 666 · 12-10-2010 10:16am

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i agree 100% (but maybe not for the same reasons?)

as ive already said, the larger corps are going nowhere, illegal downloads or not. the only reason that warner et all are concerned about illegal downloading is to protect their profits.

while on one hand you may be putting the smallest dent in a multinational's profit margin, on the other you may be taking food out of the mouth of someone just like yourself and that is low... very very low :mad:

I think you're in moral quicksand here. It's more acceptable in your eyes to steal from the big company than the indie? Whatever reasons that the artists might have had for signing to the major label are their own but the material is still copyrighted. Downloading the album from the major label for free is still denying the artist revenue and I'm sure you're well aware how many more albums the guy signed on the major label would have to sell to make the same money back for himself as the indie guy.

The record industry and the major labels are undeniably corrupt but its that little guy with the sh1tty record deal from the major that's going to suffer the most with illegal downloads. He'll probably get dropped by his label after one album, be completely disillusioned and never make another piece of music again.

DamagedTrax · 12-10-2010 10:20am

Android 666 wrote: »

I think you're in moral quicksand here. It's more acceptable in your eyes to steal from the big company than the indie? Whatever reasons that the artists might have had for signing to the major label are their own but the material is still copyrighted. Downloading the album from the major label for free is still denying the artist revenue and I'm sure you're well aware how many more albums the guy signed on the major label would have to sell to make the same money back for himself as the indie guy.

The record industry and the major labels are undeniably corrupt but its that little guy with the sh1tty record deal from the major that's going to suffer the most with illegal downloads. He'll probably get dropped by his label after one album, be completely disillusioned and never make another piece of music again.

i think you need to go back and read what i wrote again.

nowhere did i say it was more acceptable. infact i clearly stated that both are stealing.

what i was trying to get across is that the situation isnt going to change anytime soon so if people are going to steal then at least think of the knock on effects before they do so.

my idea of those knock on effects may differ from yours but a differance of opinion is not tantamount to condoning stealing.

UPC victory in piracy case

Comments