Music downloads, how legal is legal enough?

jj_jj

Larchwood1 wrote:

Well he earned it being the most successful British Artist in living memory, and really quoting the richest guy in the market by a country mile as a justification for avoiding paying all the struggling musicians doesn't really work as a moral argument.

I'm not justifying avoidance of paying struggling musicians and I only quote Sir Macca, as his 'hard earned' fortune's been in the press recently. I am suprised you think he deserves it though.

Perhaps if the whole industry were structured differently (as I kind of suggested in my earlier post) there wouldn't be som many struggling musicians. It seems to me that the record companies (I'm only referring tio the big boys here) swallow most of the money anyhow and if we had a more sensible approach to sale and licensing of music we could help the artists and the record buying public.

If I really wanted to avoid paying, I'd just P2P and take that 'stuff you' attitude that so many do. Or maybe I'd just tape it off the radio.

I'm trying to demonstrate I'm happy to pay for music - just not silly money that's swallowed by the non-artists.

David_Batty

Artists deserve to get their wages, their output should have full protection of the law and those who do the illegal downloading should be fined a sum that is passed on to the artists concerned. Ie. a £10 per CD downloaded fine passed on to the artist concerned. This way the artists losing out are compensated for their loss.

People go to work, they expect their wages to be paid in to their account with not a penny missing. Some of these people feel they have the right to take other peoples wages away from them by illegally downloading their works.

If you want free music then learn to play an instrument, if you feel you have not got the ability or are not good enough to do this then start downloading the free music from bands websites given away as tasters of their work. If you don't want either of these options then put your hand in your pocket and spend some money, otherwise as an illegal downloader you are no better than a shoplifter.

I am a musician, software developer and producer of video/dvd works. I know how difficult it is to make money when those of us who can 'do it' are ripped off by those people who only have the skills to illegally take the work of others.

Larchwood1

iwanttosave wrote:

....now I am not about to go out a spend £10 on an album off the strength of two songs. I might download one or two more songs from them and if I like it I then go out and buy the album, whereas before I wouldnt have.

It amazes me that pluggers will go to any legal length to get their songs on the radio, but if I want to hear a track before buying it I may only hear 30 seconds. THIS IS DAFT. Why not play the whole song, at reduced bit rate, or spoiling something in the middle, but at least to hear the whole thing two or three times in a manner which degrades the finished article would do the industry no harm. Hearing the music must produce sales or why would they try so hard!

Larchwood1

jj_jj wrote:

I am suprised you think he deserves it though.

I believe in the virtues of the free market economy, and that's how he got his money. Straight and honest. We (I) bought his music as fast as I could lay my hands on it in the 60's, his PRODUCT was just what I wanted. I think he's become a bit of a p***** and rather more pompous than a rock star should be, but that doesn't mean he didn't come by the money honestly.

That's not the same as my believing that fats cats who fail and still get their noses in the trough are deserving, on the radio it was claimed the Thames Waters boss gets £800k and loses 20% off all the water, THAT isn't right, I hope they vote him off.

sra

Larchwood1 wrote:

Why not play the whole song, at reduced bit rate,..., but at least to hear the whole thing two or three times in a manner which degrades the finished article would do the industry no harm. Hearing the music must produce sales or why would they try so hard!

funnily enough that's what allofmp3 are doing in their beta Itunes software competitor - Whole song previews at lower bit rates

dccarm

Berfore I discovered allofmp3, I had pretty much given up on buying CD's. They are simply too exepnsive (and I should know - I've hundreds of the bloody things!) Now, since I signed up to the website about a year ago I've spent somewhere in the region of £200 on music. Without allofmp3 I'd have spent nothing. The music industry here needs to take note.

cwep2

The tail effect is a well observed phenomenon in e-commerce: when you open up the choices available to the average consumer - the little stuff suddenly starts selling in quantities you didn't expect and given the number of these you make many more sales.

Netflix in the US (dvd rental by post) was a good example, your average video store fodder (blockbusters from last 2 years) made up 95% of the rental market beforehand. With tens of thousands of titles available the less mainstream titles (eg bollywood, specialist documentaries, manga) started outselling the blockbusters by virtue of their numbers. Titles which had never expected to make money suddenly started to get rented a lot - partly because of availability. The 'blockbusters' now make up less than a third of rentals.

If legal (and ethical) music downloading was cheap enough they would see the volumes go through the roof. They must realise it is an inferior copy of the song/album because of DRM and compression (lack of packaging etc etc) and charge accordingly.

Those that have used P2P and legal services will know how much quicker itunes is, how much more reliable (quality, song is real, a good rip) it is and if it was priced competatively P2P would be blown away, why bother with the hassle? The record comanies also have the back catalogues, bsides, rare tracks, the non-mainstream music. Charge 50p for the first two singles on an album the rest at 5p per track. Then charge for the bsides that were only available on the cd singles, the live tracks, the band you remember from 10 years ago and are dying to hear again but can't get the CD anywhere....

Change peoples habits so they buy more, capture those that use P2P or allofmp3 - ok you'll never get 100% but if you make it better, easier, faster and with every track under the sun available in one place a lot more people will use it.

I guarantee that if legal uk sites charged 10% of what they currently do they would increase their turnover more than tenfold. I think the UK sites have a lot to learn from allofmp3 and it's not too late to change things over here.

greyster

JPS wrote:

I'd vote option E. Why pay 2p and 60p when I can get it all totally free...not that I do of course;)

Yeah I think more people download for free rather than use a cheap alternative. That said there is a lot of evidence to suggest a lot of people people who download for free do go out and buy after listening (whether that is Napster, itunes, the russian one or a shop).

Dead_Eye_Jones

I wouldnt be suprised if people who use that site are caught up with sooner or later. Ive not been there but I guess you have to hand over some personal details, eg for payment so all the users will be easily traced. We all know its illegal, of course they cant provide tracks at that price and renumerate the artists and record companies. Its a matter of time before the first law suits are filed and Im just glad my details arent logged on those Russian servers.

I find it sad that so many people think it's fine just cos 'their mate' said so, or a website said 'its kinda ok'. Common sense tells us otherwise and stupidity wont get you far when the first summons land on your mat.

My brother is a struggling musician who is directly affected by music piracy, its sad that people can only think that the main artist is hit. Everything filters through and affects everyone in the whole industry. Which in turn hits the country's economy. It frustrates me that people only care about what's in it for them, people are happy to get away with anything they can without and respect for society.

I also think its fundamentally sad that people dont see a moral issue with ripping off other people's work. As a software developer I can say it truly sucks to see people freeloading the programs that I slaved over for many many hours to try and put bread on the table and a roof over my family. Whats worse is the attitude in which people do it - not an ounce of shame or embarrasment. A true sign of the depths to which society is sinking.

There is no excuse for not buying music, its is more affordable than ever before, access to music to try before you buy has never been easier. Come on people - play the game!

johnthomas_2

some of these russian sites have been up for years, given that the RIAA and various other organisations have tried to get the site taken down, and failed, and given that no-one has been prosecuted for using these sites, despite some young kids being done in the states for downloading off p2p, if this was illegal as some of the moralists on this discussion have made out, where are the prosecutions? these russian sites are getting ever increasing numbers of users and the authorities know about them, so why aren't they doing anything about it? I am assuming that the Dells of this world dont own video/tape/cd/tv recorders? Have never borrowed music from a friend, have no copys of old tapes that they no longer own the original for..... Why can you not buy a reasonably priced variable bit rate quality audio track of your choosing, in the format you want (you are paying for it) without it being wrapped in a cra*py DRM wrapper to then be at the mercy of the person you bought it from to change what you can do with it as and when they like (Tivo did this recently). Do you think the large record labels would be selling digital audio online at all if it hadn't been for people like Napster? Why is it, when all the companies involved knew that mp3 was coming, yet did nothing about arranging distribution models for this new media? Why when record companies are bleeting on about the amounts of money they are losing to downloads, still spending vast sums on promoting and sustaining markets for X Factor karaoke seals? Steve Brookstein, Journey South, Michelle McManus they are killing the music industry, 79 - 89 pence for an mp3 is far too high, and there is no justification for it moral or otherwise. If prices for downloads were more in line with what the market is prepared to pay, sites like the russian's would not have appeared in the first place.
If you are a struggling musician, (killed by the illegal download market otherwise i could have been someone) why not put your stuff on Peoplesound and if a lot of people like your music you may get a deal...
And what about bands who have got big through the internet, often giving material away?
Anyway got to go, i am off to download Chico Time from iTunes, i wouldn't want to deprive such a talent from the 3 pence cut he will get from my purchase.