30 May 09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8073068.stm
Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisers say.
Can they claim they are out of pocket to the tune of tens of billions of pounds if the people downloading never had any intention of paying for the material they obtained and perhaps simply wouldn't have "consumed" it if it weren't for the fact that they could get their hands on it for free? Is it truly 'money "lost"'?
Also: the calculation mentioned in the article ("Researchers found 1.3m people using one file-sharing network on one weekday and estimated that over a year they had free access to material worth £12bn" ) assumed that not even one of the downloaders went on to buy something that they found they liked as a result of downloading. So what does this "£12bn" figure actually mean?
Getting lawyered up is the commercial music producers' prerogative, of course, but wouldn't they be better off responding to the changing times and find a different way of marketing music and in so doing reduce illicit file sharing?
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFI´m with you on this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8073068.stm
[b]Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisers say.
Can they claim they are out of pocket to the tune of tens of billions of pounds if the people downloading never had any intention of paying for the materi ...[text shortened]... d a different way of marketing music and in so doing reduce illicit file sharing?[/b]
That article was utter nonsense.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFCopyright law is a joke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8073068.stm
[b]Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisers say.
Can they claim they are out of pocket to the tune of tens of billions of pounds if the people downloading never had any intention of paying for the materi ...[text shortened]... d a different way of marketing music and in so doing reduce illicit file sharing?[/b]
Inventions can be patented for 17 years before they can be copied -- which usually takes over the market in short order. Copyrights, on the other hand, last for the lifetime of the author -- and then go on under various extensions, purchases of rights, etc.
So you can copy Prozac today (first sold in the US in 1988, off-patent in 2001), but not copy John Lennon's song 'Imagine' (written in 1975).
Another example of this idiocy is the song "Happy Birthday". "Happy Birthday" was actually composed originally in 1893 but not officially published until 1935. Time Warner bought the copyright on the song for $12 million, and it is protected through 2030, earning approximately a million dollars every year in royalties.
So every time you sing "Happy Birthday" at a place open to the public, among a large number of people that are not family, friends or loved ones, you are considered to be giving a public performance of the song and thus are committing copyright infringement.
Unjust laws do exist. I classify current copyright law as one of them -- so 'civil disobediants' have my sympathy.
30 May 09
Illegal downloading is one of the best things that ever happened to musicians, creating exposure for them for free. Of course it's bad for record companies and successful artists, but they have enough money already anyway.
The statement that illegal downloading is costing the economy billions is absolutely ridiculous - in fact it's creating a lot of value.
South Park summed it up beautifully in their episode on illegal downloading. "Not a big deal?!"
30 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFEveryone's got some form of DRM in place, but the truth of the matter is that in order for it to play anyway they have to release the codecs to play the stuff which creates a great little industry for hackers to hack into and share around the world as free-ware, if only to increase their guru status within their own community.
wouldn't they be better off responding to the changing times and find a different way of marketing music and in so doing reduce illicit file sharing?
The point that music that no one would have bought is being shared and that the only cost involved is your bandwidth, begs the question why royalties aren't attached to the bandwidth associated with file sharing? They charged a surcharge on blank audio cassettes a while back in recognition that ultimately people wanted to create their own mix tapes. Its not rocket science to work out where the file sharing occurs and through which ISP's those transfers are being routed.
For my money its just another scam to allow Microsoft et al to complain about the difficulties involved in protecting copyright, so that they are then justified to keep releasing newer versions of the same thing which over time forces you to upgrade or be left behind. If anything from my own personal experience I would say the frustration of getting a corrupted free copy that sounds like crud, actually only serves to motivate you to go out and buy a legal good copy of the real thing. Apparently in Asia or so the legend goes, Microsoft turns a blind eye to pirated software, sometimes even releasing cheap versions of the real thing just so as to keep large numbers of users on the same page. Rather than freeze out markets, by keeping every one current, they still see a potential to make more money that way through complimentary sales, than being tough on piracy and having a smaller pie.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFso what if people are downloading music?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8073068.stm
[b]Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisers say.
Can they claim they are out of pocket to the tune of tens of billions of pounds if the people downloading never had any intention of paying for the materi ...[text shortened]... d a different way of marketing music and in so doing reduce illicit file sharing?[/b]
Haven't they got enough money already? it doesn't make much of a difference if their songs are being listened to for free, they'll get money in one way or another anyway.
01 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho are you to make the judgment that they "have enough money already?"
Of course it's bad for record companies and successful artists, but they have enough money already anyway.
Maybe some of them have lots of overhead and aren't doing very well. Maybe some of them will have to close down and lay off scores of people because of your judgment that they have enough money already.
It's one thing to say that there should be shorter time limits on copyrights or even that IP protection shouldn't exist, but do you really think that your arbitrary judgment of who has enough money already should have any bearing on economic policy?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Yes.
Who are you to make the judgment that they "have enough money already?"
Maybe some of them have lots of overhead and aren't doing very well. Maybe some of them will have to close down and lay off scores of people because of your judgment that they have enough money already.
It's one thing to say that there should be shorter time limits on copyrights or ev ...[text shortened]... itrary judgment of who has enough money already should have any bearing on economic policy?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76What difference does it make to a record company whether you buy a used record or download it off some site? Crack down on second-hand shops now!
Maybe some of them have lots of overhead and aren't doing very well. Maybe some of them will have to close down and lay off scores of people because of your judgment that they have enough money already.
Am I the only person who thinks that the silly anti-piracy clips in front of DVDs are actually intended to increase piracy by investing a mundane activity with an aura of glamour that it wouldn't otherwise possess? Corporate perversity knows no limits, I tells ya ...
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageObviously, because to buy it second hand, you need to wait until someone no longer wants it. By downloading or copying it, both of you can enjoy it at the same time even though only one of you paid for it. If you both wanted it at the same time and couldn't copy it, you'd both have to pay for it.
What difference does it make to a record company whether you buy a used record or download it off some site? Crack down on second-hand shops now!
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I was hoping you could tell me the difference in terms of ethics.
Obviously, because to buy it second hand, you need to wait until someone no longer wants it. By downloading or copying it, both of you can enjoy it at the same time even though only one of you paid for it. If you both wanted it at the same time and couldn't copy it, you'd both have to pay for it.
01 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCan we apply the same logic to large stores or rich people? If I steal from a large chain store because "they have enough money anyway" does that make it OK? What if I steal from you on that basis?
Of course it's bad for record companies and successful artists, but they have enough money already anyway.
Of course the record companies are not the ones who loose out when you download a song, it is the people who actually pay for the song who pay for your download.
My own understanding of it is that if you would have bought it if you couldn't download it then you are certainly causing the seller to loose money. If you wouldn't have bought it then you are not doing as much damage as outright theft of assets or cash. However, are you honest about how much you would have bought if you couldn't get it for free?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe difference is simple.
I was hoping you could tell me the difference in terms of ethics.
When the artist/ producer puts it into the stream of commerce, s/he does so with the intent that one user can enjoy it at a time. The possibility of resale is understood and accounted for by the party who puts it into the stream of commerce.
By allowing two distinct users to enjoy it at the same time by making copies, you're doing something that was outside the intent of the producer, which is clearly indicated to the consumer prior to the purchase. Most songs/ CD's, etc., clearly indicate this at the point of purchase.
01 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know about him, but my buying habits haven't changed. I just have access to more music, including stuff I'd never have been able to hear (out of print / too expensive). Admittedly, I have always copied music. I put a lot more energy into making bad cassette copies 20 years ago than pirating now ... (Apparently home taping did not kill music).
However, are you honest about how much you would have bought if you couldn't get it for free?