flyfisher

No more morally wrong than doing 80mph on an empty motorway, I'd say. No one is deprived of anything. No one is harmed. Heck, no one would even [u]know[/u].

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361487613' post='1986629'] It's interesting that people liken the music industry (and labels) to things like Kodak and Jessops. Kodak and Jessops got out-paced by the market and left behind, the things they provided weren't in mass demand any longer. In the music industry, the product is still very much in demand and the industry has kept up to date (the latest technology is downloads and it's easy as pie to get things onto iTunes, Amazon etc, most things that get released go through there). [/quote] Not sure about that analogy. Yes music is still in demand despite all the technology changes, but so is photography. The things no longer in demand are vinyl, cassettes, and photo film and transparencies. The music industry has not really embraced new technology and seemingly wants to retain its old business models. It also wasn't the music business that set up iTunes that has revolutionised music sales. Kodak, though, is quite a good analogy for the music business. As previously noted, it actually invented digital cameras and was an early player, but the management couldn't see the potential and didn't embrace the change. Dinosaurs is a word that comes to mind.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1361475403' post='1986386'] You only need to read HYS mantra on the BBC site, "Only those with something to hide have anything to fear", it's heading that way - and in the same way that the childhood game of dodging your train-ticket is now a criminal (not civil) offence I reckon music piracy will end up on the same level of law. [/quote] You could well be right about the 'big brother' thing, but I still reckon that they've missed the boat because most music fans already have a few hundred GB of music on their hard drives so even if things were tightened right up tomorrow with uncrackable anti-copy mechanisms and the death penalty for copyright abuse, most people would simply stop worrying about new music and just enjoy what they've already got. After all, a lot of the habit of downloading is like a junkie's search for the next fix - the relentless drive to find something new and better than they've ever heard before. But wean them off the habit - even if it's cold turkey - and they'll return to being all mild-mannered and content with the mere 'months' of continuously playable music they've already got in their iPad or smartphone. The music industry will then be able to gloat that they've 'beaten' file sharing for a short while before realising that they've also killed their golden goose. Meanwhile, bands around the world will take advantage of the ease of musical production and distribution and will do their own stuff and distribute it globally and freely. And if anyone thinks it won't happen, look what's happening with the open-source software movement . . . .

Nice story - I hope it progresses well. I've been playing in two bands for the past 3-4 years but there are also various 'bits on the side' going on - of the musical type! Two of the guys in one band regularly play acoustic duos locally. Myself and a guitarist from each band have jammed a few times together. One of the guitarist also does a sort of comedy uke act and I've played on, recorded and produced a CD of his songs. It all adds a bit of variety.

[quote name='bobpalt' timestamp='1361466412' post='1986169'] "And we offer our sincerest apologies for the trouble and inconvienence we have had in the past couple years." Am I missing the point, as surely, if it was an apology it should have said "the trouble and inconvenience we have CAUSED" ? [/quote] I'd say the issue is having to apologise for TWO YEARS of problems.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361455540' post='1985921'] Frankly, I is desolated. [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/199907-illegal-downloading-file-sharing-and-what-i-think-what-do-you-think/page__view__findpost__p__1985631"]http://basschat.co.u...ost__p__1985631[/url] [/quote] Oh dear. Oh dearie dear. My humblest apologies for rushing through the back-posts and missing your comment. It would be bad enough if I'd only read them through once but I actually read them twice because I was sure someone would have picked up on it. Of course, when I say "read" I'm obviously fooling myself as I clearly didn't 'read' anything at all. Must have been too early for the old brain to register. Frankly, I share your desolation, though for different reasons.

Good morning. I see that things carried on thought the night long after I succumbed to my slumber. I have to say, though, that I'm rather disappointed that, amongst all the moral wrangling, no one picked up on my point about file sharers being the ones that spend around 10x more on music than non-sharers. Perhaps this muddying of the clear moral waters is too much of an inconvenient truth to bear, but it does suggest that trying to prevent file sharing is a classic example of babies being thrown out with the bath water.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361403971' post='1985631'] In Johnny Cash's autobiography he mentions how - in the 1930's - his father refused to listen to the radio or to recorded music on the grounds that - being recorded - it was not 'real'. For him, 'real' was a live, unrepeatable and unique performance in the presence of the listener. Bearing in mind the degree of artifice to which most musicians now resort when recording, I am tempted to agree. Most records are not records as in the sense of a historical record, but are instead static constructions. The unvarying performance from play to play and the repetitious nature of broadcasting creates a straitjacket from which the performer cannot subsequently escape. [/quote] Now there's a can of worms! I agree that 'recording' now has a somewhat different meaning to the days when The Beatles recorded their Please Please Me album in a single day (just to keep to topical examples ). However, there's surely no doubt that even a piece of music that has taken many years of elapsed time, gazillions of CPU cycles and umpteen mixes and remixes is still a creative work of art, even if it cannot be precisely recreated in a live performance. They are just different forms of the musical art. It's akin to the photo-vs-image debate that rages in photographic circles between the traditional wet chemistry types and the digital photoshopping types.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361402662' post='1985608'] Morals, courtesy and common sense; the definition thereof; variance in 'application' and the individual. Now there's a 25 page thread in itself [/quote] . . . at the very least I should think.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361402705' post='1985609'] You're spot on, everyone does have different standards. This is one of those areas though where someone's working with the aim of making money and other people are taking advantage to benefit from the work without paying their dues for it. The only grey area I can see (morally) is if you [u]DEFINITELY[/u] wouldn't have bought an album but own a copy of it, though if you are so sure that you definitely wouldn't own it, then there's no point having a copy anyway since it's obviously something you don't like or won't get any use from. I imagine 99% of people (including myself and the majority on this forum) have had a pirated copy of something at some point, even just copying someone else's CD onto your MP3 player for example, but that doesn't make it right, no matter how much you think you can justify it. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that anyone that does own copied music is the devil incarnate, I just don't understand how people think it's justifiable. [/quote] So what's your take on that study that concluded that file sharers spend around 10x more money on music than those who don't file share? http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music The argument against file sharing seems to be that it deprives artists of income, yet that study suggest that the file sharers are contributing the most to artist's incomes. So what's the thing that's actually 'wrong'?

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1361401614' post='1985587'] A) You think you're better than everyone else and don't have to abide by the same morals, courtesy and common sense as everyone else. [/quote] Now there's an interesting statement. Isn't it obvious that everyone has different morals, courtesy and common sense? That's what makes people individuals isn't it?

[quote name='oggiesnr' timestamp='1361399930' post='1985550'] If a band gives it's music away for free that is the decision of the band and fair enough. I know a band (Show of Hands) that actively encourages people to file share because they believe that it adds to sales. That too is their right. They may be correct or not but that's irrelevant, it is their choice. [/quote] Agreed. [quote name='oggiesnr' timestamp='1361399930' post='1985550'] However when a band decides that it doesn't wish to give their music for free away isn't that also their right? [/quote] Agreed. [quote name='oggiesnr' timestamp='1361399930' post='1985550'] If you then decide to take it for nothing, then no matter how good your "reasoning", you are a thief, same as if you took something for free off my market stall. The fact that you can run faster than me, are bigger than me or have your mates with you doesn't alter the fact that you are a thief. All it means is that you've found a way to get away with it and you can then justify it to yourself (and your mates) on the grounds that I should be bigger, faster or have more mates than you. Doesn't alter the fact that you have taken what was not yours, you're a thief. [/quote] I'm not really saying it's acceptable behaviour, I'm saying it's not theft because no one is being deprived of anything. Suppose someone can only afford to buy one album each month. Imagine they wish to choose between two bands. They choose to buy band A's album, thereby "depriving" band B of some income. It could be argued that band B is worse off as a result of the decision to buy band A's album, but it not really a valid argument is it? Otherwise we'd all be guilty of always depriving someone of something as a result of our spending habits. I think a big problem with these sorts of discussion is that they tend to concentrate on the extremes. Thus, if everyone downloads everything and never buys any music ever again then the industry will disappear. Well perhaps. But that's not what happens is it? The reality is rather more uncomfortable, so people tend to ignore it in favour of extreme examples that are not relevant in practice - like 'downloading is theft'. Here's an example of an uncomfortable truth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361399433' post='1985539'] Yes, geeks care about it because like I said technophobes and conservatives try to think of things with ancient mindsets and thus break and restrict technology with their regressive laws - it's been going on ever since the printing press was invented and probably even before that. [/quote] I suspect we're saying the same sort of thing. I'm saying the mechanisms are irrrelevant because it's only really how these things are applied that actually matters. Technophobes and conservatives may try to control these things but they don't have a particularly successful track record do they? New technologies enable new possibilities, people respond with new behaviours, law makers respond accordingly and things progress. As you rightly say, it's been going on for just about forever and I see no indication of it stopping anytime soon - however much the music industry dislikes it.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361398232' post='1985515'] Right, whatever. I'm not arguing with you or Flyfisher anymore. There's no point. If anything, you're too smart for your own good. [/quote] I don't want to speak for Mr Foxen, but I don't think I'm being particularly smart about all this. I'm just pointing out all the issues. You've started out from a 'black or white' position, which would certainly make things simple if it were true, but it's not, so it isn't. The music industry is struggling with the same thing - they want things to be black and white but no matter how much they wish for it and throw around their highly paid barristers, it all remains murky and grey. Bow out of the discussion, by all means, but playing the 'trolling' card is not really worthy is it? Goodnight.

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of bands (some quite famous) giving away their music for free. Should we criminalise that?

[quote name='Wil' timestamp='1361396285' post='1985451'] Things change, and the record industry as we knew it is not something that will or even should necessarily last for ever... [/quote] We could continue this thread for another few hundred posts but we'll never improve on that succinct summary.

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1361392392' post='1985363'] For me, and I'm a massive Zep fan and serial gig goer back in the day,absolutely not. Respect is due for what they achieved but let's support the up and coming bands now. It's farcical to me that the Strolling Bones are up for best live act - are a bunch of grandads really the best we can do? Saw them in the 80s too! [/quote] That seems a bit ageist to me. Anyway, you only need to be 32 to legally be a grandad. But I tend to agree it's farcical for The Bones to be up for best live act - I mean, you'd think there'd be younger bands around that would have the same impact wouldn't you, but it seems not. Must be the reason why there are so many reunions these days and why Hollywood seems obsessed with remaking films. Hasn't the yoof of today got any original ideas to compete with the classics of yesteryear?

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1361390234' post='1985299'] I must say that the 'cultural significance' bit made me chuckle! [/quote] Me too. We can thank xilddx for that though.

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361394538' post='1985403'] Yes the terms are used to [i]emphasise[/i] differences, but again: only technophobes and conservatives see the two as fundamentally different. The method of transmitting data in both is exactly the same. [/quote] The method of transmission may be the same but the application most certainly is not and it is the application that matters, not how a bunch of bits happen to be moved about. Only geeks care about that stuff.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1361391231' post='1985332'] If someone offers me something for free, fair enough. I either accept or decline. If someone invests their time and money in making something and sells it through channels designed to inhibit free distribution (however faulty), it seems only polite to respect their wishes. Of course, one may act against the seller's wishes and one may even devise some justification for so doing. But fundamentally, it's one's own wishes versus those of the seller. And observation has shown there is no greater spur to ingenious thought than finding reasons to justify one's own wishes particularly when it comes to getting something for free that other people pay for. [/quote] Yep, all fair points, but it also provides some illumination about why it is impractical to criminalise downloading per se - because it all depends on the circumstances.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361391194' post='1985328'] And if the law you were talking about is the one i think it was- It was a highly discriminatory law, with no legal reasoning for it. [/quote] So what? It was illegal and, therefore according to your earlier arguments, it was wrong to break those laws.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361391100' post='1985326'] If everyone had your view on this, i'm sure jobs in the music industry would dry up very quickly. [/quote] History is against you on that one. Has the music industry dried up since tape recorders and CD-Rs were made available for home copying?

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361389715' post='1985283'] Oh right, so where am i legally allowed to put my penis now that i wasn't 100 years ago? [/quote] If you really don't already know the answer to that, I'm sure Google will help you - but it's a digression too far for this topic I'd say. [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361389715' post='1985283'] The potential . . . . [/quote] You can't (sensibly) talk about the potential for something while still claiming it to be black and white. [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361389715' post='1985283'] Why would anybody download music that they weren't willing to pay for? that's just a bit idiotic. [/quote] Try telling that to the teenager on the Clampham omnibus with a 160GB iPod full of downloaded music that they couldn't even AFFORD to pay for even if they really wanted to. Compact cassettes didn't kill music as was widely predicted by the music industry. Videotapes didn't kill cinemas as was widely predicted by the film industry. And downloading won't kill them either.

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361380753' post='1985073'] Streams are self-contained files, they are just played as they are received. [/quote] Not if it's a live event that's being streamed. Again, 'streaming' and 'downloading' are words deliberately chosen to emphasise the differences between these two methods of transmitting data.