Illegal downloading

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='far0n' post='1069995' date='Dec 27 2010, 11:10 AM']I've downloaded stuff illegally as have most people, but what the record companies seem to be missing is that if people can get it for nothing they will. Whether they had the intention to buy it in the first place is another matter. I've downloaded albums illegally just to have a listen... I previously had no intention to buy it, so that in my book is not classed as lost revenue.

Anyway, I've recently bought the latest Jamiroquai CD without listening to it first... it's great in my opinion and well worth the £9.99 I paid for it. Don't understand why people buy mp3s though? Surely if your ipod or PC crashed and you lost the lot... at least you've got your CDs to fall back on right ??[/quote]
Just thought point this out.

iTunes, Im not sure on other sources, backs up all data downloaded to a server available only by your account. So if the terrible happens, and you buy a new PC/laptop/iPhone/iPad blah blah blah you can sign in and retrieve all that data for free.
For me this is great as I have far too many computers and I don't have to buy again everytime or rip a cd on to each computer or laptop.
I illegally download stuff I really want to listen to that is pretty much unavailable unless you import it.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1070685' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:32 AM']The initial Beatles sales figures are in: More than 450,000 albums and 2 million individual songs were sold on iTunes worldwide, according to Apple, since the Beatles catalog was made available Tuesday (Nov. 16). In U.S. the best-selling album was "Abbey Road" and best-selling song was "Here Comes the Sun."[/quote]
Thanks for that. Very interesting.

I'd be astonished if those 450k album sales were to people who had never before bought those albums.

I can imagine all the hype about releasing The Beatles on iTunes might have inspired some people to have bought those tracks/albums for the very first time, but anyone with even a passing interest in their music would surely have bought the CD versions long before the iTunes release (or even the vinyl versions)?

So most people are either buying the music again (in an inferior format!) or they actually waited for it to be released on iTunes. Bizarre behaviour in either case.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' post='1070700' date='Dec 28 2010, 01:04 AM']Just thought point this out.

iTunes, Im not sure on other sources, backs up all data downloaded to a server available only by your account. So if the terrible happens, and you buy a new PC/laptop/iPhone/iPad blah blah blah you can sign in and retrieve all that data for free.
For me this is great as I have far too many computers and I don't have to buy again everytime or rip a cd on to each computer or laptop.
I illegally download stuff I really want to listen to that is pretty much unavailable unless you import it.[/quote]
A 500GB external hard drive costs about £50 these days, so there's no real excuse not to keep a backup copy of all your music, except laziness.

And if you're illegally downloading music then you'll be saving loads of money anyway, so you might as well buy a backup hard drive . . . unless you can steal one from somewhere.


Alternatively, since you have 'far too many computers', just keep a copy of all your music on each one. That should minimise your risk of losing anything.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070707' date='Dec 28 2010, 01:33 AM']A 500GB external hard drive costs about £50 these days, so there's no real excuse not to keep a backup copy of all your music, except laziness.

And if you're illegally downloading music then you'll be saving loads of money anyway, so you might as well buy a backup hard drive . . . unless you can steal one from somewhere. [/quote]

+1. I don't even have any music on my laptop but I just listen to music on it off my 1tb backup drive which i got in a maplin special offer for £60...

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='1070833' date='Dec 28 2010, 11:16 AM']+1. I don't even have any music on my laptop but I just listen to music on it off my 1tb backup drive which i got in a maplin special offer for £60...[/quote]

That's certainly a decent solution for storing and playing music, but if all your music is on a single, external "backup" drive then it's not actually backed-up at all is it?

You need to have copies of all your stuff on more than one physical device to be safe.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070859' date='Dec 28 2010, 11:46 AM']That's certainly a decent solution for storing and playing music, but if all your music is on a single, external "backup" drive then it's not actually backed-up at all is it?

You need to have copies of all your stuff on more than one physical device to be safe.[/quote]

Sorry. I forgot to mention that it's all copied off my main PC up in my room.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='1070889' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:30 PM']Sorry. I forgot to mention that it's all copied off my main PC up in my room.[/quote]

Yep, that'll do it. Now you just have to worry about all your PC stuff being nicked. ;-)

Seriously, it's a big issue these days. People keep vast amounts of really important stuff on attractive electronic gizmos, which are easy to break, lose or have stolen. Fortunately, it's also cheap and easy to maintain multiple copies.

My lad's at uni and also uses a separate hard drive for all his music and photos. Whenever he comes home, we copy all his stuff onto the 'home server' PC, which is itself backed up to three other hard drives, one of which is kept at another house.

Paranoid? Perhaps, but I've never lost anything yet!

I guess we all have tales of people losing things but the worst I know of was a not-very-PC-literate neighbour who was doing her PhD. She was writing it on a laptop and was aware of reliability issues and asked me to help her with a backup scheme. She only had 3.5-inch diskettes at the time, but that was OK, and I implemented a scheme that would rotate three diskettes and she would run a simple backup script after every writing/editing session. Having three diskettes allowed her the possibility of going back to an earlier version if she screwed anything up plus she could leave a diskette at home while she went to the British Library for her research.

Everything was fine . . . until she left her laptop and ALL the diskettes on the train, never to be seen again. Fortunately, she at least had a printed copy at home, although it was about a month out of date.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070674' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:09 AM']Besides, what IS the justification for needing a licence to have a radio in the office or factory when the broadcasters are, presumably, already paying the thick end of a very large wedge already? This seems like the usual music industry trick of getting the mug-punters to pay more than once for their music.[/quote]
When I worked in radio I had plenty of opportunities to observe the PRS at work. Their monitoring procedures were scrupulous to the point of microscopicity. Which should please musos everywhere. And their demeanour was entirely cordial and helpful.

PRS levies are not particularly exorbitant compared to the other overheads necessary to run a broadcasting operation. They are regarded by most broadcasters as being quite reasonable. And, as I'm sure you know, UK terrestrial radio is free-to-air. It costs the mug-punters [i]nothing[/i] beyond the initial cost of their radio and their TV license - the funds from which support the BBC.

It is probable that shopkeepers include their PRS license in their overhead budget. Much as they do the cost of heating, light etc. Research has proven that in-store music "enhances the retail experience". Anyone who plays music in their premises - be they the mighty Tesco or old Mr Bun the baker - flogs more product. Why should they evade remunerating the musicians who have contributed to their incrementally greater success?

In the (very) old days, musicians objected to the fact that they were effectively being ripped off. The PRS was the answer to that and its objectives are wholly laudable. It seems to be the view of a minority that - based on a few bizarre niggles out of countless transactions - the PRS is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the musician's friend.

Some may disagree. I challenge them to present a viable alternative.

[quote name='Johnston' post='1070766' date='Dec 28 2010, 09:41 AM']If it wasn't for the [b]illegal [/b]actions of the pirate radio stations we likely wouldn't have had the British music boom of the 60's and the industry in the UK could have turned out much different. And now 50 years on how often do you hear anyone complain about them??[/quote]
Being an awful pedant, I must point out that between March 1964 when Caroline went on-air and August 1967, the pirates weren't actually illegal. They exploited an 'International Waters' loophole that was closed by the 'Marine & Etc. Broadcasting Offences Act' of 1967. At which point they became illegal. Who was the jack-booted authoritarian who introduced the Act? Step forward cuddly old freedom fighter Tony Benn.

I've known a few of the guys who - as they put it - "Worked on the boats". Gentleman drinkers and dreadful old roues to a man.

Edited December 28, 2010 by skankdelvar

[icastle]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070959' date='Dec 28 2010, 02:07 PM']Paranoid? Perhaps, but I've never lost anything yet![/quote]

I dump all of our stuff onto DAT tape once a week and keep the newest tape in my car glove box and the next oldest in the outhouse at the other end of the garden.
Not up to Iron Rock standards but it does the job well enough...

[lowdown]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1070984' date='Dec 28 2010, 02:36 PM']When I worked in radio I had plenty of opportunities to observe the PRS at work. Their monitoring procedures were scrupulous to the point of microscopicity. Which should please musos everywhere. And their demeanour was entirely cordial and helpful.

PRS levies are not particularly exorbitant compared to the other overheads necessary to run a broadcasting operation. They are regarded by most broadcasters as being quite reasonable. And, as I'm sure you know, UK terrestrial radio is free-to-air. It costs the mug-punters [i]nothing[/i] beyond the initial cost of their radio and their TV license - the funds from which support the BBC.

It is probable that shopkeepers include their PRS license in their overhead budget. Much as they do the cost of heating, light etc. Research has proven that in-store music "enhances the retail experience". Anyone who plays music in their premises - be they the mighty Tesco or old Mr Bun the baker - flogs more product. Why should they evade remunerating the musicians who have contributed to their incrementally greater success?

In the (very) old days, musicians objected to the fact that they were effectively being ripped off. The PRS was the answer to that and its objectives are wholly laudable. It seems to be the view of a minority that - based on a few bizarre niggles out of countless transactions - the PRS is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the musician's friend.

Some may disagree. I challenge them to present a viable alternative. [/quote]


All this......and very well said.

Garry

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1071147' date='Dec 28 2010, 06:25 PM']All this......and very well said.

Garry[/quote]
+1 Garry...
notice how the cogent presentations of factual evidence are studiously ignored by the naysayers? Views are held to suit complainers with little recourse to fairness.

[icastle]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071153' date='Dec 28 2010, 06:33 PM']+1 Garry...
notice how the cogent presentations of factual evidence are studiously ignored by the naysayers? Views are held to suit complainers with little recourse to fairness.[/quote]

Well that works both ways it seems.

I suppose in 'recourse to fairness' they did eventually stop chasing the 56yr old granny (cogent presentation of factual evidence supplied earlier) for £2000 because she was singing in her shop - but then I suppose that was 'fair' because she isn't your granny eh?

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='icastle' post='1071177' date='Dec 28 2010, 07:02 PM']Well that works both ways it seems.

I suppose in 'recourse to fairness' they did eventually stop chasing the 56yr old granny (cogent presentation of factual evidence supplied earlier) for £2000 because she was singing in her shop - but then I suppose that was 'fair' because she isn't your granny eh?[/quote]
She could have tried [url="http://www.rfmradio.co.uk/about.html"]Royalty Free Music Radio[/url].

[icastle]

[quote name='EssentialTension' post='1071394' date='Dec 28 2010, 11:58 PM']She could have tried [url="http://www.rfmradio.co.uk/about.html"]Royalty Free Music Radio[/url].[/quote]

Why should she have to sign up to anything just to sing songs to herself while she stacks shelves?

[skankdelvar]

[quote]Daily Mail: Assistant manager of the store Dale Alexander said they had been contacted by the Performing Right Society to say their business could be fined if they were caught listening to a radio without a licence, so Sandra [i]decided to entertain the staff and customers instead[/i].

The Sun: Sandra Burt [i]started serenading customers [/i]after the Performing Rights Society warned her bosses they would have to pay an annual fee of £80 to keep the grocery store radio on. But despite shoppers loving the 56-year-old's music, she was told she must pay live performance fees costing up to "four figures" or be hit with a huge fine.[/quote]

Frankly, it's a bit silly to go after them for this. It's clearly not a performance as we know it, but I suppose it counts as a performance within the narrow confines of the law.

But the PRS reversed its decision and sent her a box of chocs and a nice greetings card.

So everybody's happy.

Edited December 29, 2010 by skankdelvar

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1070984' date='Dec 28 2010, 02:36 PM']PRS levies are not particularly exorbitant compared to the other overheads necessary to run a broadcasting operation. They are regarded by most broadcasters as being quite reasonable. And, as I'm sure you know, UK terrestrial radio is free-to-air. It costs the mug-punters [i]nothing[/i] beyond the initial cost of their radio and their TV license - the funds from which support the BBC.[/quote]
Price has very little to do with fairness. Given that the PRS only exists to collect money for musicians then it's reasonable for it to do whatever is legal to maximise such revenues. This is clearly a good thing for musicians - but don't confuse this with fairness.

One of my earlier points was the 'fairness' of charging both broadcasters AND shopekeepers etc. Of course it's good for the musicians, but is it really fair? I suppose such a practice takes a lead from well-established government practice to tax us on the money we earn and then tax us again on the money we spend. I'd argue that's not particularly fair either.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1070984' date='Dec 28 2010, 02:36 PM']It is probable that shopkeepers include their PRS license in their overhead budget. Much as they do the cost of heating, light etc. Research has proven that in-store music "enhances the retail experience". Anyone who plays music in their premises - be they the mighty Tesco or old Mr Bun the baker - flogs more product. Why should they evade remunerating the musicians who have contributed to their incrementally greater success?[/quote]
That's a very fair point, and paying for the musicians who happen to help contribute to the success of such businesses seems perfectly reasonable. The 'consumer' of the music thus pays for the music - what could be fairer? But why charge the broadcaster [u]as well[/u]? Indeed, it could be argued that the musicians should pay the broadcasters, since it is they who are instrumental in getting the musicians' work out to the consuming public in the first place.

Imagine a 'bakers rights society' that collected a fee from shops just for the privilege of stocking their products in the first place, in addition to collecting a portion of the actual sales [u]as well[/u]. I suspect most people would think that rather unfair.

The 'singing shelf-stacker' is a prime example of what happens when a single-minded organisation sets about its business with no concern to fairness, only it's prime objective - in this case to raise money for musicians. Good for musicians, certainly, but not necessarily fair.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='icastle' post='1071177' date='Dec 28 2010, 07:02 PM']Well that works both ways it seems.

I suppose in 'recourse to fairness' they did eventually stop chasing the 56yr old granny (cogent presentation of factual evidence supplied earlier) for £2000 because she was singing in her shop - but then I suppose that was 'fair' because she isn't your granny eh?[/quote]

You simply should not have openly accused them of this:
"I suspect they just take the money for any unidentifiable songs it and just keep it"
That is not a fair minded position to take, it's making assertion on suspicion and I will always point it out when I see it.

Edited December 29, 2010 by jakesbass

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071500' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:06 AM']Imagine a 'bakers rights society' that collected a fee from shops just for the privilege of stocking their products in the first place, in addition to collecting a portion of the actual sales [u]as well[/u]. I suspect most people would think that rather unfair.[/quote]

You're ignoring intellectual property rights, which can be found being protected and remunerated in all walks of life, from product patents to literary publishing to advertising copy etc etc. It's everywhere, why should it be any less protected for music?
Your bakers rights society example is not comparing like with like.

Edited December 29, 2010 by jakesbass

[flyfisher]

I disagree. The recipe for a loaf of bread can embody IPR as much as a piece of music.

Of course IPR should be protected and remunerated, but you're missing (or evading) my basic point - the fairness, or otherwise, of charging [u]multiple[/u] royalties.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071528' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:34 AM']I disagree. The recipe for a loaf of bread can embody IPR as much as a piece of music.

Of course IPR should be protected and remunerated, but you're missing (or evading) my basic point - the fairness, or otherwise, of charging [u]multiple[/u] royalties.[/quote]

I don't see in your post where you have pointed to multiple charging. you say that it's wrong that broadcasters are charged "as well"... as well as what? The payment is made by broadcasters for the purposes of licensing a public performance. I don't think you have demonstrated to any reasonable degree that this is multiple charging. Consumer purchase of a product is an entirely separate transaction and just like other forms of IP is charged for accordingly.

I agree that bread recipes can be IP and I'm sure in certain cases they are. The bakers rights society is still a spurious point excepting the fact that the business model you describe in that example is alive and kicking.... it's called a franchise. Eg it can be quite expensive to earn the right to sell McDonalds products. (a bit OT I know but interesting nonetheless)

The clue is in the name BTW. Performing rights... not Purchase rights. PRS deal with the live side.

Edited December 29, 2010 by jakesbass

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071500' date='Dec 29 2010, 02:06 AM']Imagine a 'bakers rights society' that collected a fee from shops just for the privilege of stocking their products in the first place, in addition to collecting a portion of the actual sales [u]as well[/u]. I suspect most people would think that rather unfair.[/quote]
In the US supermarkets charge for shelf space. If you want to be in a good spot in the store you pay the store, then they take a markup too. Just FYI.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1070680' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:20 AM']Both of the above examples are examples of cognitive dissonance. You want to steal but don't want to be a thief so a construct is created that makes your stealing noble.[/quote]

All offenders do this, whether it is stealing, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or murder. Its the way they (and we) feel ok about ourselves and the choices we make. Illegal downloading is just that; illegal. It is theft. I don't do it routinely anymore (did the usual as a kid) although I will admit to having accessed a few 1950s deleted jazz recordings without paying for them simply because there is, to my knowledge, no way of getting hold of the recordings commerically.

If I need to learn a track, I buy it as a cd or downlaod or access it on Spotify or Youtube.

I have mixed feelings about the PRS thing. I understand the need for artists and companies to maximise revenue but I am equally aware of the complex relationship between products and customers. How many of us see a film or tv programme on tv for nothing and then go out and buy the dvd? The transmission was paid for by the BBC (Inc PRS) etc, we received it initially for free but then, as we liked it, chose to part with our hard earned in order to secure a copy. What is the difference between that and hearing a cd/download at a friends place/in a shop etc and then buying a copy? Do we need a PRS licience if we have a private party and play cds for people to dance to/to create atmosphere?

My comparison is with shoplifting in supermarkets. In the old days, goods were put behind a counter and you had to be served to get whatever it was you were looking for. Friendly but labour intensive. Now goods are lined up in massive open plan warehouses so the customer selects what he wants and takes it to the checkout. Fewer staff required but shoplifting becomes a problem. The business decision is that it is more cost effective to tolerate the shoplifting and put prices up to counter the losses than it is to employ more staff to ensure goods don't go walkabout. Is downloading the same? Are the profit margins on selling a product that only exists in a virtual sense (i.e. reduced production/distribution costs) so great that it is worth losing a few hundred thousand downloads as a 'loss leader'? The technology exists to 'lock' the data and prevent copying but they don't employ it because customers don't like it (because the WANT to copy it from cd to ipod to pc to iphone etc). It is still theft but the industry wears it as its profit margins are better that if they simply reverted to the production of a product like a cd.

Either way, copying things you don't pay for and distributing them, whatever the motive, is theft.

PS I have had a PRS lady turn up at a gig I did and write down every tune we played. I spoke to her at length afterwards (she was very pleasant) and she told me how it worked. Good job as I had to tell her the names of all of the tunes we had played because they were all Brazillian and had titles in Portugese .

[flyfisher]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1071533' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:44 AM']I don't see in your post where you have pointed to multiple charging. you say that it's wrong that broadcasters are charged "as well"... as well as what? The payment is made by broadcasters for the purposes of licensing a public performance. I don't think you have demonstrated to any reasonable degree that this is multiple charging.[/quote]

If the broadcasters are charged "for the purposes of licencing a public performance" then why are shopkeepers and factories also charged for having a radio in the workplace? That seems like multiple charging to me.

The franchising and charging-for-shelf-space examples are interesting but are really only voluntary commercial arrangements, whereas my multiple charging example seems to be enshrined in law.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1071547' date='Dec 29 2010, 10:56 AM']If I need to learn a track, I buy it as a cd or downlaod or access it on Spotify or Youtube.[/quote]
That's a good example of the confusion surrounding this whole issue. On the one hand music is legally free and on the other it has to be paid for. Basically the public has the choice of either buying music or listening to it for free. Given that both options are seemingly perfectly legal, it's a wonder that anyone buys music at all these days.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1071573' date='Dec 29 2010, 11:29 AM']That's a good example of the confusion surrounding this whole issue. On the one hand music is legally free and on the other it has to be paid for. Basically the public has the choice of either buying music or listening to it for free. Given that both options are seemingly perfectly legal, it's a wonder that anyone buys music at all these days.[/quote]

I for one find listening to music on a PC uncomfortable. Sitting there for hours looking at Spotify or Youtube does not appeal to me one bit (and the sound on the Tube is not great.