Illegal downloading, file-sharing and what i think- what do you think?

[RockfordStone]

i didnt used to download music, i used to go to my local music shop.... that closed down[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361101404' post='1980969']
I didn't write this on the value of music, that's subjective, and if you are willing to pay nothing for an album, well then you shouldn't own it, because it clearly shows that you don't really want it.

I value a burst tyre at nothing, because i don't value a burst tyre, because i don't need a burst tyre. Somebody might value it at something, but not me.

But i think the attitude of the general public is "I can have it for free, so why wouldn't i have it for free?". They completely disregard that it is actually illegal, purely because the likelihood of them getting done for it is incredibly slim. I suppose that stands to reason really, most people will do things when they think they won't get caught. But that is not the point, just because you can get away with something does not mean that you should, and to argue that you should be allowed to continue to keep doing something illegal is idiotic. It's a illegal for a reason- It looses the artists and label so much money.

Copying a CD onto your computer, i don't see an issue with that. While i'm defending people getting their music legitimately, i'm not going to buy hundreds of songs again so i can have them on my iPod. That doesn't make me bad, i've downloaded plenty of other music that i didn't own.
[/quote]

if i copy my own cd to my computer, then its ok, as i have paid and purchased a physical copy.

if however i borrow a friends cd, and copy it to the computer then i haven't paid for it, so is this not the same as illegally downloading from pirate bay or otherwise

downloading music is illegal, but its made out to be a bigger issue than i think it really is.

how is me downloading an mp3 any different form me recording a song from the radio onto my cassette deck... which we wall used to do in the olden days.

i try to avoid downloading where i can, but all my local music shops are gone. i never downloaded when i had a local music shop, now the nearest is an hour away.

they should introduce a system where all music is downloadable. pay a base fee of i dunno say 3 or 4 quid an album, with the option to donate additional if you feel so inclined. that way the band/record company could make some money back, as i believe more people would consider buying if the prices were more reasonable (please note i haven't thought this out a great deal, and is probably full of holes, but there a number of sites for music/podcasts etc that operate on donation basis)

[flyfisher]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1361106388' post='1981073']


None of these are really free though. As a consumer you still have to pay for your internet connection to get YouTube and Spotify, and you have to buy the Sunday paper in order to get the CD.

And while the end user might be getting them for "free" the distributer (YouTube, Spotify, etc.) has paid the rights holders a fee in order to be able to use that music. For the artists it's a balancing act between getting paid for the usage (and on YouTube and Spotify the rate per play is minuscule) and using it as cheap advertising in the hope that those listening will be tempted to buy their music on CD or downloads. Of course that won't work if people are simply happy to only watch/listen on YouTube and Spotify.

I think what will start happening soon, is that unless royalty rates from the on-line services start getting sensible from an artist PoV, artists and rights holders will restrict what is available free to stream, so YouTube will be like MTV in the 80s, with the main track promo video from the album will be available, but nothing else. The same with Spotify, a couple of tracks that you can listen to, but if you want more, then buy the album(s).
[/quote]

Yep, all fair points, but I think you,re missing mine, which is that althese things result in kids today being immersed in effectively free music, so they no longer value it as I used to when buying an LP was a significant amount of cash and building a record collection to lovingly house on special shelves was something to aspire to. Likewise, all those CDs I paid £10-15 for . . . .those days have gone and won,t be coming back.

Plus music is a disposable commodity these days. We may sweat and fret over the creation of our songs, work long and hard to record them, lug around tons of expensive gear so we can perform then, but for the vast majority of people all these efforts are just something to listen to while doing something else. And if they don't listen to our stuff they'll just listen to someone else's - it's no big deal.

So yes, copying music is wrong, but so is stealing post-notes from your employer and driving at 80mph on a motorway - but it doesn't,t stop it happening and it won't stop it happening. That's just the way it is.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361105353' post='1981060']


I have never downloaded music illegally.

Is it illegal to rip a song from a CD to a computer because it's illegal to make a copy? Because i think that was really only to stop people making copies and giving them to other people. I don't think it's too hypocritical just because i want my CD's on my iPod. In my case, i have at least bought the music (i do own some hard copies and downloaded versions of the same albums though, not many) whereas other people are outright taking it without paying.

Maybe it's a bit hypocritical.
[/quote]

See? Full of confusion. Yes, it is illegal to rip a CD that you've purchased, though it's looking like the law will be changed - probably in recognition of the fact that it's a daft law that can't be enforced. Taping LPs for use in a car was the same sort of thing in the 70s and 80s but everyone did it.

[Prunesquallor]

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1361111081' post='1981147']how is me downloading an mp3 any different form me recording a song from the radio onto my cassette deck... which we wall used to do in the olden days.
[/quote]

Quite a bit. Home-recorded cassettes were sh*t in quality, and rapidly deteriorated. Also, you never got all of the song because the DJ talked over the beginning/end of it. If you really liked it, you had to buy it. Now you can download all of an artist's discography in high quality while you make the tea.

Same as taping an album for a mate: 90 minutes of slavishly watching over the VU meter for ONE inferior copy. That's a big difference from uploading a CD instantly for everyone to take perfect copies from.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Prunesquallor

[Mr. Foxen]

Music and professional musicians existed before sound recording.

Downloading doesn't infringe copyright, because the copying is done uploader end, so in this country, there isn't 'illegal downloading', its the difference between making a burned cd and being given one, making the copy is a different thing to receiving it. If you see proper articles on the subject its always filesharing and uploading that is the illegal thing, torrents come under this because they upload at the same time as downloading.

Vast amounts of music out there is totally rubbish, no-one has an obligation to pay for rubbish work they don't want done, if you want to make money from something, you need to do it in such a way to make money, failing to do so is not something you can blame on anyone else. People will check out something that is free that they'd never pay for, so a free listening isn't a lost sale, its a sale opportunity.

Digital media formats that can be copied are inherently limited to sound, physical formats aren't, so you can still produce a music product as a saleable item, and its much easier to do so now that it was before, the recording costs have dropped vastly since the music industry became established, so the space to invest in the product outside of the recorded stuff is there, and all the necessary contacts to make such things are easily available due to the digital communication medium, you don't need a labels worth of accumulated contacts any more, you can just ask on a forum and be sent to all of the necessary people to make a product. But making excuses and blaming technology is easier.

[bobbass4k]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361114339' post='1981192']
Music and professional musicians existed before sound recording.

Downloading doesn't infringe copyright, because the copying is done uploader end, so in this country, there isn't 'illegal downloading', its the difference between making a burned cd and being given one, making the copy is a different thing to receiving it. If you see proper articles on the subject its always filesharing and uploading that is the illegal thing, torrents come under this because they upload at the same time as downloading.

Vast amounts of music out there is totally rubbish, no-one has an obligation to pay for rubbish work they don't want done, if you want to make money from something, you need to do it in such a way to make money, failing to do so is not something you can blame on anyone else. People will check out something that is free that they'd never pay for, so a free listening isn't a lost sale, its a sale opportunity.

Digital media formats that can be copied are inherently limited to sound, physical formats aren't, so you can still produce a music product as a saleable item, and its much easier to do so now that it was before, the recording costs have dropped vastly since the music industry became established, so the space to invest in the product outside of the recorded stuff is there, and all the necessary contacts to make such things are easily available due to the digital communication medium, you don't need a labels worth of accumulated contacts any more, you can just ask on a forum and be sent to all of the necessary people to make a product. But making excuses and blaming technology is easier.
[/quote]

This. A thousand times this.

[Twigman]

Personally my band would have ceased to be were it not for illegal downloading.
The internet and file sharing kept the interest in my band alive for years adn now we have reformed as a result.

I view it as a free marketing opportunity more than anything else.

[redstriper]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361114339' post='1981192']
But making excuses and blaming technology is easier.
[/quote]

I agree 100% and file sharing is the best thing that's happened to music and communication in general for years - it should certainly not be illegal.

Another thing is that downloading is not as popular now because streaming has taken over - many young people don't want to own music, they just want instant access to it, anytime, anywhere and that dream is now becoming a reality.


My band distributes all it's music and video freely and we have made friends and contacts all over the world.
This has led to airplay and gigs which generate income, but money isn't our motivation - we are happy for people to enjoy our stuff, whether they pay or not.
We still sell CDs and vinyl to those that want it and it's great that the choice exists, despite the resentment from those who would turn the clock back.
Musicians who accept the new ways are enjoying freedom to share their work like never before, while the grumpy old men moan on and on about the so called good old days.

You might resent it, but the kids don't care

[flyfisher]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361117005' post='1981261']
Musicians who accept the new ways are enjoying freedom to share their work like never before, while the grumpy old men moan on and on about the so called good old days.

You might resent it, but the kids don't care
[/quote]

Nail > head.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1361115470' post='1981214']
Personally my band would have ceased to be were it not for illegal downloading.
The internet and file sharing kept the interest in my band alive for years adn now we have reformed as a result.

I view it as a free marketing opportunity more than anything else.
[/quote]

But...

I think that this is only possible due to the fact that that Sad Lovers And Giants have a fairly significant, well recorded, back catalogue that was (at least in part I guess) financed by your record label of the time. Would your band have been able to record and release those records without the support of the label and the sales that they generated in the 80s?

If you were a new band with just a few years of existence would you be able to produce and finance a similar body of work and give the results away for free simply in order to be able to play some gigs.

It's all very well to say that your band currently exists because of the re-interest in it through file sharing, but that interest is completely and utterly built upon the success of the previous band/record label business model and to ignore that is somewhat hypocritical.

Without it you'd just be another band scrabbling about trying to work out how to pay for recordings and the resources to go and play them live.

[Mr. Foxen]

The previous model existed in a different time, that's why its previous and not current. Now you have to do things differently. Keeping doing things the old way is the problem, not the fact a different way exists now.

[BigRedX]

That's not what I said.

I was saying was that it is somewhat disingenuous for Twigman to claim that his band's current success is built upon file sharing, when without the fact that Sad Lovers And Giants sold enough records under the old business model to carry on recording they would have nothing worth sharing in the first place.

[Guest bassman7755]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361103199' post='1981016']
but we still can't deny that the loss in revenue from illegal downloads is a massive amount,
[/quote]

I'm not sure that there is much of a loss, a lot of what people currently get for free they would simply go without or borrow a mates CD to copy etc etc. If music is good enough value for money people will pay for it especially if the paid-for route is the least hassle.

[Roger2611]

I used to have one problem with the whole illegal download game, there was a time where a lot of excellent music was completely unavailable, the legal download sites didn't have decent playlists and the back catalogues were unavailable from the record companies so effectively you could not buy the bands music anymore.

Kazaa was the file sharing site of choice at the time and I actually uploaded a small number of tracks from Prince Charles and the City Beat Band to the site which were promptly downloaded a good few times usually in America (I had made countless searches online and via the likes of HMV and this bands stuff was completely unavailable anywhere in the world at the time) so my question is, would the band rather no one could here their music or would they sooner it be available (allbeit as a recording from a lp record) so new listeners can hear the music and hopefully with enough enquiries it would be re-released again?

I firmly believe in paying for the music I download (I actually felt guilty recently when OMD gave away the track Sister Mary Says I thought it was so good that I wanted to pay for it! so I am going to see them live instead)

So to me the above was a big plus for the file sharing sites at the time, however nowdays that the legal download sites have a much more extensive catalogue I cannot condone illegally downloading music when it is there to be brought legally but I bet there are still bands out there that are not on the legal download sites so the illegal fileshare sites may still be the only way of getting their music

[heminder]

I don't buy music from big labels any more, and certainly not from major labels. Nor do I pirate it. These organisations are the people that push ancient, archaic, and draconian laws in parliaments. I do not want to have any association to them or the bands that have signed themselves under them. Handing these people money is immensely regressive to all of society (and yes, I mean ALL of society).

There is more to this than simply gratis music and movies.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPEO-u_c0t0[/media]

Edited February 17, 2013 by heminder

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1361124185' post='1981419']
That's not what I said.

I was saying was that it is somewhat disingenuous for Twigman to claim that his band's current success is built upon file sharing, when without the fact that Sad Lovers And Giants sold enough records under the old business model to carry on recording they would have nothing worth sharing in the first place.
[/quote]

It would seem that his records weren't worth distributing under the old business model, hence their lapse into obscurity, until the new improved model brought them back. current success is down to file sharing, regardless of their old success, or intervening lack thereof.

[Starless]

Myself and the other members of our covers band have been engaged in filesharing for some time now. If any of us have a suggestion for a new song to add to the setlist we email an mp3 to the other members. Sometimes even distribute a doctored edit or key-changed version. There has never been a time when a new suggestion has resulted in us all popping to HMV or iTunes and laying down cold hard cash for a song. If none of us actually own a copy of a tune, then it's usually a straight audio rip from a You Tube version.

So just how guilty should we all be feeling?

I remember a time when album inner sleeves screamed at you, "Home taping is killing music". That was 40+ years ago, so exactly how much better would the last 40 years of popular music have been if us young scrotes hadn't swapped our cassettes around with our mates? Did the music actually die?

[Mr. Foxen]

Sounds like you play covers. That's like making copies, but live.

[bobbass4k]

[quote name='Starless' timestamp='1361127638' post='1981512']
I remember a time when album inner sleeves screamed at you, "Home taping is killing music". That was 40+ years ago, so exactly how much better would the last 40 years of popular music have been if us young scrotes hadn't swapped our cassettes around with our mates? Did the music actually die?
[/quote]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xoJ3hRcc9M[/media]

Edited February 17, 2013 by bobbass4k

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='bobbass4k' timestamp='1361107201' post='1981086']
Ok, I expect to become a lightning rod of hate and vitriol, but I personally think these points are always worth making, so here goes.

The argument of downloading music/films/etc. as theft is predicated on a few assumptions which are not always accurate, for the sake of clarity I will confine examples to music.

First is the idea that downloading music is always theft. The anti-piracy campaigns always compare digital media piracy to physical property theft, which is inherently wrong. When you steal a car or an album from a shop, you are physically removing one of a finite number of items that belongs legally to someone else. If you steal a car, you are depriving the person who owns it of their car against their will, if you steal a CD from a shop, you are depriving the shop of a potential sale, as they only have a finite number of CD's to sell. When you download an album however, you are downloading a digital copy of the disc or files that has been willingly copied and shared by the owner of the physical disc, and actually by downloading it you are creating your own copy. So really there's very little similarity, it's not like stealing a CD from a shop, it's more like the shop pressing a new CD and giving it to you. It's not like stealing a car, it's more like someone leaving the blueprints and parts for an identical car next to theirs.

Anti-piracy campaigns really heavily on the "illegal downloading is theft" angle because it stigmatizes and vilifies downloading, if you download something for free, you're no better than a car thief or someone who mugs an old lady. This type of emotive manipulation is deceitful and founded on nothing, "illegal downloading" is not covered under any sort of theft law, if you are unlucky enough to be prosecuted for illegally downloading something it will not be in even a remotely similar manner to a car thief or a mugger, yet these are the kind of comparisons constantly made.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics though, far more relevant is the issue of motive. The second assumption made in the view of downloading as theft is that of potential loss. The idea that downloading an album for free is wrong is predicated on the view that downloading is always used as a free alternative to paying for it, and that but downloading it for free you are depriving the artist of the money you would have paid for the album. This for me is the single biggest issue with downloading. Personally if I can afford the album/film/movie and want to support the artist then I purchase it and am happy to do so. But what if you had no intention of purchasing the album whatsoever? If you download an album that you wouldn't have purchased legally, who suffers? The artist doesn't suffer because they wouldn't have gotten any money from you anyway. A shop or downloading service doesn't suffer because they wouldn't have gotten their percentage either. In this scenario, nobody suffers at all, nobody loses any money and nobody's work is impacted. And the reality is that this scenario is a significant percentage of illegal downloads.

Record companies/movie studios etc. view all illegal downloads as lost potential sales, and that simply isn't the case, I know from personal experience that a lot of people download things because they're not sure whether they'd want to buy it. If that option wasn't available then most of them simply wouldn't buy it, and the companies wouldn't regain a lot of sales because they weren't losing sales in the first place. After Christmas my mum gave me a lot of leftover food that she hadn't used. I went to Tesco's a few days later and saw they had Dorito's on offer, I was going to buy some but I remembered that there some Dorito's in the stuff she'd given me, so I didn't get them. Would anyone really say that I'd stolen those Dorito's from Tesco's? The argument is essentially the same. The issue has become especially murky recently as services like bandcamp allow you to stream the entire album for free, and now most bands put up full album streams before the official release date. So it's OK to listen to the album whenever you want through a browser for free, but the extra convenience of having the files so you can listen to it offline is a heinous act of theft?

There are large parts of the downloading culture that I find unpleasant, the aforementioned Kimdotcom being one of them, and personally I've never supported the "record companies are all big and evil so it's OK" argument, because it's an implicit admission that downloading is wrong but selective targeting can justify it, which personally I don't believe.

So, that's a little bit of my 2p, I am very happy to discuss and debate any of this stuff, hopefully we can keep it civil for a while.
[/quote]

I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying, Bob, except the analogy about Doritos. I would say it was more like your mum having Doritios, then make an exact duplicate and giving it to you, giving both you and her Doritos, one of which were purchased above board, and the other is a copy, which DID deprive Tesco of a sale.

No, it's not really the same as stealing a car, or breaking into somebodies house and running off with their computer, but it's not like it isn't stealing. If i was a bit better versed on the ins and outs of intellectual rights, i'm sure i could probably make a fairly good argument here, but i'm not.

People wouldn't buy the album anyway- Then why do they want to download it? If they don't want it enough to pay for it, why would you download it for nothing? I don't really care for a lot of things, maybe if somebody bought them as a gift for me, i would be pleased enough, but i feel no desire to own these things on any level, so why would i want to get it for nothing?

Again, i agree with about 80% of what you said, but i thought a couple of points were a bit... silly, especially coming from you.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361129162' post='1981552']
I would say it was more like your mum having Doritios, then make an exact duplicate and giving it to you, giving both you and her Doritos, one of which were purchased above board, and the other is a copy, which DID deprive Tesco of a sale.
[/quote]

Home cooking is killing ready meals?

[BigRedX]

[quote name='heminder' timestamp='1361126904' post='1981494']
I don't buy music from big labels any more, and certainly not from major labels. Nor do I pirate it. These organisations are the people that push ancient, archaic, and draconian laws in parliaments. I do not want to have any association to them or the bands that have signed themselves under them. Handing these people money is immensely regressive to all of society (and yes, I mean ALL of society).

There is more to this than simply gratis music and movies.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPEO-u_c0t0[/media]
[/quote]

It's all very well going on about giving people the freedom to invent and create, but if he can't also provide a way that allows these inventors and creators a way to earn money from their work, how can they create and invent effectively when they have to spend the majority of their time doing something else in order to be able to afford to live?

This doesn't enable people at all. It more than ever keeps the resources to dictate who creates and invents in the hands of those who already have money. Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361114339' post='1981192']
Vast amounts of music out there is totally rubbish
[/quote]

This is your opinion. What music you like has no place in this. We can just assume that all music is governed the same and the artist has the same rights as every other artists.


[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361114339' post='1981192']
something that is free that they'd never pay for, so a free listening isn't a lost sale, its a sale opportunity.
[/quote]

Of course it's a sale opportunity. I've bought plenty of albums after listening to them on spotify, which if you read the thread, you know that i do pay for my use of that, but that is not the same as taking an album without paying for it. It's like playing a guitar in the shop before buying it.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1361130147' post='1981581']

[i]"Vast amounts of music out there is totally rubbish" [/i](Mr Foxen)

This is your opinion. What music you like has no place in this. We can just assume that all music is governed the same and the artist has the same rights as every other artists.
[/quote]

Actually, I didn't read that as Mr Foxen's personal take on things (though it could be). I read it as applying to everyone. Unless someone happens to like absolutely all music , then the statement is essentially true for anyone. I know it is for me.

[icastle]

Seems to me that law and technology have got totally out of synch here.

My understanding is that 'legal cases' are generally based on laws that are only indirectly applicable to the act of downloading digital data because the entertainment and legal industries didn't keep a more studied eye on technology.

I have always bought a physical CD.

I always rip it to my PC so 1) I will always have an undamaged copy and 2) it's more convenient to listen to in that format and location.

Some of those also get burned to CDR so I can listen to it in my car.

It may be illegal, but as far as I'm concerned, I am not sharing the CD and what I decide to do with it once I've paid for it is purely my business.