Court threat to UK song swappers

[Doh_boy]

For me I spend a fair amount of money on cd's, (~30 quid a week) and I'm not going to spend anymore (I'm not paid all that much). I download songs for two reasons 1) because I can't be bothered to buy the single (I still buy singles now and then) 2) Because someone recommended it and I'd rather know what it's like first before I spend money on it. I'm not advocating what I'm doing as right or anything just that if I'm prosecuted they'd loose money (I'd not buy any music afterwards) rather than gain them. It scares me how rabidly they're going after this when at the end of the day, for the most part, the people involved are 'their customers'.

 

[nath]

It strikes me that it's one big assumption that people would have bought the music that they download, were it more difficult/impossible to get it online. There's no proof of this, I know there's not a single MP3 on my computer that I would have spent money on (or didn't spend money on already) had I not been able to download it. So basically, I've not cost the music industry a penny (I don't share my music with others either).

Also, didn't I read somewhere that album sales are up in recent years, so perhaps it's all bollocks. I think it's more that single sales are down because it's a choice of 3-5 quid for one or two songs or 10 minutes downloading it. All this has done is wised people up to just how shit value for money singles are, and have always been.

 

[Healer McHeal]

thats actually probbly one of the best posts on this thread, it actually made perfect sence, lol, any way, i agree with you, they should just stop singles, as no one really ever buys them as they can just download them, and if they couldnt download them, they would just buy the album, and alot of people still do buy the album and have the mp3 on there pc.

 

[Cyfr]

Yeah i've noticed that at school. Many people still have 56k or slow broadband, they will download singles intead of paying some stupid amount at the shops.. but they all buy albums. I don't know if it's a 'more value for money' thing or it just takes them too long to download albums, or maybe its because p2p programs tend to have all the files as singles and not a zip with all the singles for a certain album in..

hmm!

 

[gunner440]

the thing i've found with most people i know who download mp3s

they download several mp3s and if they like it they go and buy the album anyway

but i also understand the argument could be turned around and say instead of downloading the 3-4 songs from the album they could have bought singles.


the thing is also.. not every band release singles, especially some of the more 'underground' type bands and even if they did, those more uncommon band singles would be extremely hard to get hold of - probably costing as much as the album itself

 

[throdgrain]

All this has done is wised people up to just how shit value for money singles are, and have always been.

Agree with that. I saw some statistics like the ones you've quoted too, though it seems the album buying public is considerably older, like the 30 to 40 year olds. Perhaps the teenagers are still downloading singles I dunno.
Anyway, my point earlier wasnt the rights or wrongs of downloading songs, and no i dont personally bother ,its simply that you wouldnt like it if they were your songs, and the idea of justifying it by saying oh well they have loads of money already is simply nonsense.

 

[EvilMonkeh]

its simply that you wouldnt like it if they were your songs, and the idea of justifying it by saying oh well they have loads of money already is simply nonsense.

but if they are only doing it for the money then tbh they shouldnt be doing music in the first place.....

for me, i never used to buy music. then i started to download some mp3s and found some i liked, and started buying albums.
good argument nath, i have only bought less than 5% of my mp3s, and if i had to pay i wouldnt have got the other 95%, so either way the companies arnt getting my money....

 

[nath]

Anyway, my point earlier wasnt the rights or wrongs of downloading songs, and no i dont personally bother ,its simply that you wouldnt like it if they were your songs.

Couple of point's I'd say to that: Some musicians genuinely do it for the art, and are quite happy with people just listening to and appreciating their music. Of course, it's not up to us to enforce that on them, plenty of them aren't happy with that. The main issue is that they're fed a load of bullshit that people stealing their music is taking money out of their pockets. IMO (and it's backed up by those stats that evidently we both read which makes me think I probably didn't imagine it) it's doing nothing of the sort. If that's true, all it comes down to is the fact that someone is listening to your music without paying you for your time, you're not losing anything but it's potentially a bit insulting.

 

[tRoG]

They aren't getting your money, you shouldn't get their music.

 

[nath]

You shouldn't ever travel at 72mph in a 70mph zone. You also shouldn't do lots of things that you probably do that doesn't really hurt anyone much but should probably remain illegal.

 

[tRoG]

That's almost as bad as the "Oooh, but everybody does it!" excuse.

 

[nath]

That wasn't my point. The point is that it's pretty damn harmless (IMO).

 

[Munkey]

i do it for a number of reasons:

a) there are no viable alternative online methods for me to download music
b) i dont trust people to post me the cds out from the UK if i pay them (that includes amazon and the likes)
c) it takes months for music that isnt rap to reach out here and i want to listen to it ASAP

I do eventually buy it, unless its so shit it gets deleted and then sworn at. Soon as i buy XP then i can download that apple music service. Be much better then

 

[throdgrain]

but if they are only doing it for the money then tbh they shouldnt be doing music in the first place.....

.

No no no . I like selling motorbikes, but I do it to earn money. Being a musician isnt necessarily a mission surely? That seems a bit of a nieve approach.
Having said that, I know some groups and people that that will see it as such.But thats the choice of the musician, not the the audience?

 

[Tom]

Isn't George Michael releasing all his future records for free?

 

[Skyler]

Hmm where do I start...

I can't believe some of you are actually going against the free spread of music and believe it to hurt the industry... The industry was in decline long before filesharing showed up... In recent years filesharing has appeared and become hugely popular, but so have DVD's, Mobile Phones and various other accesories... people only have so much money.. they can spend 10quid on a DVD which get's them an entire film and shitloads of extra features that they wont get downloading it, the quality is better than if they downloaded it and it's all for less than the price of an Album. Considering most Albums have 2-3 good songs you want and the rest are crap I'd say that DVD's are far superior value..

I'm not saying filesharing has had no effect, of course it has, but it's had more of a positive effect for music and the popularity of music than a negative effect on some peoples bank balances.

The people hurt from filesharing are those big named record companys who churn out shit like the wank on pop idol, they fill our faces with that utter fucking shit, taking people off the street and hammering out cover song after cover song and that really is just disgraceful, that's not about music that's nothing but a media machine geared at money... The mainstream artists only lose out due to downloads because they are paid a pittance for the 10quid albums.. most of it goes to a company who churn out these artists constantly. These artists generally have enough exposure and sell hundreds of thousands of records even with filesharing rampant... so whats the problem? A few people aren't getting the huge profits they are used to... that's their fault for not anticipating this and doing something about it, it's their fault for not producing quality and giving the consumer what they want... Singles sales are dying because they are too expensive... Singles made sense because you could help your artist achieve a higher spot in the charts, which used to be a big thing, however now it's all mainstream crap what does it matter where your artists comes in that top 40? Personally I'd rather all artists I liked not to chart at all..

Now for those who benefit... the musicians, young talent, old talent, all forms of new talent who don't have million dollar contracts or mighty record companys to pimp them everywhere.. the artists who aren't mainstream and don't try to appeal to teenagers... the people who do things for the music primarily, and try to make a living out of it... these people can get their music heard on the internet and more often than not because their albums are full of quality music they put a great deal of effort into people buy their albums, even at full price. Since my dad has started experimenting with music online he's found I'd say at least 10 bands he's hooked onto... he's bought every single album they have produced and has seen all of them live at least once... he had stopped buying music before he started experimenting on the internet, cause there was nothing he liked around, nothing he wanted... Practically everyone I know has found some band they think are fucking ace from downloading and have bought an album of theirs or gone to see them live... this is such a benefit to music.. it far outweighs slightly lower profits which aren't totally down to filesharing anyway...

Plenty of artists out there would love to be heard all around the world.. just for that thrill of others playing their tunes.. listening to their songs.. if they can make money out of it then that's a bonus, but they first have to get exposure... the internet is the best tool for that... in an hour you can have your entire musical catalogue available on the internet for free download to an audience of like a billion people ? Those artists deserve that exposure... all the internet has done is balance out the industry more... instead of those marketed artists getting exposure and the same crap being churned out just for profit we are seeing more and more new talent who deserve recognition appear around and make some money for a change.. Ever wondered why people on the DJ circuit hand out promos to DJ's ? because they want exposure, they want their tracks played so that when they are finally released more DJs will buy them and their music will spread...

Incidentally most of the music I listen to is either unavailable in this country or paid for.. oh and theres the royalty free stuff which I listen to

But I do know plenty of artists who would be chuffed if I stuck one of their records on a turntable and played it out to a crowd of even 100 people..

Bottom line is, if your music is good enough, someone somewhere will pay for it, because they will feel you deserve it... if people aren't buying your songs then you need to look at why.. maybe your records are overpriced, maybe you have the wrong kind of exposure, maybe your sound is too common.. etc.. maybe you did one too many cover songs...

George Michael has the right attitude, he said the other day on Parky that he's rich from music, he is grateful to his fans for that and he wants to put his entire back catalogue available online for free... that's a decent attitude tbh.. plenty more people could do that...

The internet has only ever helped the music industry, those who are about the music... it hasn't made people poor and it wont.. record companys find it very easy to blame it for their lack of profits...

Oh and a final thing after this long ramble... a recent South Park episode hit the nail on the head regarding the recording industry... the kids downloaded music and got instantly raided by the FBI.. the FBI chief took them around to artists houses to show the effects... one example was Lars Ulrich crying in his garden, the kids asked why he was crying and the police chief said "he's crying because he wanted to get a gold plated shark tank bar installed this month but he can't because you downloaded his music, now he's got to wait to next month"... another example was at the airport with britney spears crying as she walked onto her private jet, they asked why she was crying and he said "shes crying because she was forced to sell her golfstream 3 private jet and get a golfstream 2 instead, the golfstream 2 doesnt even have a remote control for its surround sound dvd system".. etc... nail on the head imo.

 

[throdgrain]

Now sure, petition for cheaper CDs, but anyone who thinks they're leading a revolution by locking themselves away in their sweat stinking bedroom with a copy of Kazaa K++, a six pack of Coke and an IRC client is embarrassingly kidding themselves. You want a revolution? You'll have to go outside for that... watch out for the daylight...

Heh

 

[Shovel]

FUCKING edit time limit. I just rephrased a load of that, and then got told I couldn't post it any more. Grrr. Erm, could an admin kindly delete the above big long post, since I'll just have to repost the bloody thing with ammendments:

A lot of things here make my brain hurt...

1) OK yes, musicians are more easily respected if they're 'in it for the art', however, unlike me, who strums the guitar and writes the odd iffy song in my bedroom, recorded artists get paid to do music as their job. It may not be their main reason for being in the business, but they put in long working hours to produce the recorded music that you and I listen to. You might dislike someone for having their heart in the wrong place, but all musicians are doing it full time, none of them sneak off for a Saturday shift at the local chippy (apart, possibly, from Fast Food Rockers.. ahem).

2) Some musicians are rich, most are not. By the above arguments, are you saying that you only download music produced by millionaires and that you check their bank balance before you download?

-- My personal view at the moment is that downloading music is like radio (for me). As others say, if you like it, you buy it. If you don't, you don't listen to it and delete it. One reason for any fall in sales/profits is because less people are buying shit music - they've tried it first. It's that consumer power angle that I really like. There is of course also the fact that, eventually, this might actually translate to some legalised consumer power on the subject, but I'm not optimistic of that coming soon (see below).

Singles have always been overpriced wank. £4 for 2 songs, or £12 for an album of 10 or 12? Even tweenagers can do maths like that.
I don't doubt that people download singles rather than buy them: Maybe you're waiting for the album and don't want to own it twice? Maybe the record company have spied money in your wallet and thrown out a 'special edition' 4 months after you bought the original fucking album on release day? Singles are the worst when it comes to rip offs, and as such it's no surprise that they're the first to fall.

For the most part I'm very happy for the casual radio downloader, it's empowerment that gives the industry a black eye and might force some good change.

... as for the uber-h4x0r-leecher-extrodanairres who don't see nor care about the world outside them, however - no sympathy at all. I think there is a distinction between those who 'enjoy free music' and those who abuse it. Everyone involved is breeching copyright, but it's only those who think it's ok not to buy, ever, who I would call 'thieves'. Which of course they are. Please, stop fooling yourself with 'but it's not theft, it's copying' - you have something that isn't yours, you haven't paid for it, you're not 'trying it out', you're just trying to falsely justify your greed.

Now sure, petition for cheaper CDs. However, anyone who thinks they're leading a revolution by locking themselves away in their sweat stinking bedroom with a copy of Kazaa K++, a six pack of Coke and an IRC client is embarrassingly kidding themselves. You want a revolution? You'll have to go outside for that... watch out for the daylight...

And whileA lot of things here make my brain hurt...

1) OK yes, musicians are more easily respected if they're 'in it for the art', however, unlike me, who strums the guitar and writes the odd iffy song in my bedroom, recorded artists get paid to do music as their job. It may not be their main reason, but it is their job and regardless of all else, they put in long working hours to produce the recorded music that you and I listen to. You might dislike someone for having their heart in the wrong place, but all musicians are doing this as their job, none of them sneak off for a Saturday job at the local chippy (apart, possibly, from Fast Food Rockers.. ahem).

2) Some musicians are rich, most are not. By the above arguments, are you saying that you only download music produced by millionaires and that you check their bank balance before you download?

-- My personal view at the moment is that downloading music is like radio (for me). As others say, if you like it, you buy it. If you don't, you don't listen to it and delete it. One reason for any fall in sales is because less people are buying shit music, because they've tried it first. It's that consumer power angle that I really like. There is of course also the fact that, eventually, this might actually translate to some legalised consumer power on the subject, but I'm not optimistic of that coming soon.
Singles have always been overpriced wank. £4 for 2 songs, or £12 for an album of 10 or 12? Even tweenagers can do maths like that.

I don't doubt that people download singles rather than buy them: Maybe you're waiting for the album and don't want to own it twice? Maybe the record company have spied money in your wallet and thrown out a 'special edition' 4 months after you bought the original fucking album on release day? Singles are the worst when it comes to rip offs, and as such it's no surprise that they're the first to fall?

And so, for the most part I'm very happy for the casual radio downloader, it's empowerment that gives the industry a black eye and might force some good change.

... as for the uber-h4x0r-leecher-extrodanairres who don't see nor care about the world outside them - no sympathy at all. I think there is a very clear distinction between those who 'enjoy free music' and those who abuse it. Everyone involved is breeching copyright, but it's only those who think it's ok not to buy who I would call thieves. Which they are. Stop fooling yourself with 'but it's not theft, it's copying' - you have something that isn't yours, you haven't paid for it, you're not 'trying it out', you're just trying to falsely justify your greed.

Now sure, petition for cheaper CDs, but anyone who thinks they're leading a revolution by locking themselves away in their sweat stinking bedroom with a copy of Kazaa K++, a six pack of Coke and an IRC client is embarrassingly kidding themselves. You want a revolution? You'll have to go outside for that... watch out for the daylight...

Extra bit: <Trevor McDonald>And finally...</TM>, yes, the artists see a very small percentage of CD sales. Yes, lots of it gets swallowed up by the record company instead. Yes, when most sign their record contract most lose the copyright to their music. However, if record company profits drop so much, they will stop funding artists to compensate. The artists wont have any say in their plight, but it will happen because that is the system. If you want artists to be properly and generously rewarded for their work, the system has to change - you can't just bypass it and wait for someone else to fix it up.

 

[nath]

I kinda agree on some parts, but I don't agree on the theft thing. It implies you're taking something from someone so that they no longer have it. I'm not trying to excuse what they're (ok, we're) doing, it's just that a lot of the time, these people who download shed loads of music wouldn't have bought the album anyway. In those cases, no one gets hurt at all. The only thing is that the downloader is getting something for free. In that respect I kinda see it as a victimless crime, like doing 75 or 80 in a 70 zone. Doesn't make it right, but it's not *that* wrong.

 

[Healer McHeal]

have to agree on that, since, your not making it so they dont have it any more, your just taking a copy of it, but they still lost money on that copy, but its not the singers/musicians that are moaning, its the record companys

 

[nath]

The point is, they don't necessarily lose money on it. That implies that the people downloading it would have bought the music if they couldn't get the mp3 - I don't think that's often the case.

 

[Tom]

Stop trying to justify what you do by saying that it isn't theft. It is. The music is their intellectual property. They worked on it, they created it, they crafted it, just like a scupltor creates something beautiful and tangible.

Ask Damini how she would feel if, after she wrote her book, another publisher printed it, saying 'well its not really stealing, theyre only words'.

I don't condone piracy, indeed I download lots of stuff, but I try to be honest about what I'm doing. If its worth buying, I do so, if not, then nobody has lost money.

 

[nath]

I'm not trying to justify it at all, I'm just saying I really don't think it's all that bad a thing to do. You're right about the intellectual property, but the comparison you made isn't exactly the same. The publisher would be selling it to make money. The fair question to ask would be the simple and obvious one - how would Damini feel if a bunch of people, who may or may not have otherwise bought her book, went and downloaded copies of it and read it for their own enjoyment. It's quite different, she may still be pissed off but it's really not a huge deal is it.

The reason I keep saying it's not theft is not to justify it, it's to keep it in perspective. Theft brings about a very personal response, anyone who's had something stolen will respond to it. I just think it's not entirely the same.

 

[Cyfr]

Stop trying to justify what you do by saying that it isn't theft. It is. The music is their intellectual property. They worked on it, they created it, they crafted it, just like a scupltor creates something beautiful and tangible.

Ask Damini how she would feel if, after she wrote her book, another publisher printed it, saying 'well its not really stealing, theyre only words'.

I don't condone piracy, indeed I download lots of stuff, but I try to be honest about what I'm doing. If its worth buying, I do so, if not, then nobody has lost money.

Another book couldn't do that because its breach of copyright, but it's not stealing anything. She still has the original book just like the record companys still have the original cd. I personaly would never buy music, I don't get much enjoyment out of it to pay £4 for 3mins of listening really. I do download music (once a month or so ) but I download stuff which I would never buy anyway, i'd rather do without. However im not stealing their product, im just playing back a copy. If I was stealing they would arrest people under theft and not copyright infringment

 

[PLightstar]

tbh

I don't DL as much music as I used to but I really only do it to hear an artist I've never heard before. I'd never heard any of DJ Shadows stuff till I DL a track or two, then I loved it so I bought a few of his CD's.

I trying to justify myself here I know its stealing but what happened if I didn't like DJ Shadow I've just saved myself £15. I know your gonna say u can take the CD back but the problem is I live 20Miles from the nearest shop that sells my sort of music, and I haven't passed my driving test yet, so I like to know what Im Buying before I buy it.

 

[Trem]

Isn't George Michael releasing all his future records for free?

He may as well, no one is gonna buy them anyway, not after his penis+public toilet+copper incident.

ROCK ON GEORGE!!

 

[tRoG]

Shovel has just said exactly what I've been trying to say... but better

Download a couple of tracks - if you like them, buy the album. If you don't, delete the stuff and move on. It's the leet ubah haxxors who have 50gb of stolen music sitting on their HD that are the real bastards.

 

[Tom]

Another book couldn't do that because its breach of copyright, but it's not stealing anything. She still has the original book just like the record companys still have the original cd. I personaly would never buy music, I don't get much enjoyment out of it to pay £4 for 3mins of listening really. I do download music (once a month or so ) but I download stuff which I would never buy anyway, i'd rather do without. However im not stealing their product, im just playing back a copy. If I was stealing they would arrest people under theft and not copyright infringment

Sorry Krypt, you're talking out of your arse. You're exactly the kind of person that people like the RIAA have my blessing to go after.

If you don't like music, then don't download it.

 

[Cyfr]

Sorry Krypt, you're talking out of your arse. You're exactly the kind of person that people like the RIAA have my blessing to go after.

If you don't like music, then don't download it.

What would be the point? So they can get a meer £10 or something? Hardly worth the effort when I won't buy the music from the store in the first place

 

[Clown]

I think that there's too much fuss made over this new fangled music downloading shit. I think pretty much everyone knows what they are doing when they download music. Just don't complain when they fuck you up the bum for breaking the law. Me included.

People will do it and there's a risk involved. It aint no good saying "BUT IT'S HARMLESS" because at the end of the day, it isn't your laws to make. I'd love to see Cyfr try and get this copyright bullshit turned around