What are your questions on downloading & copying music legally?

PrinceYumil

Jesus...

To be honest this is all irrelevant. No matter what changes happen. Free music will be there, the same with films and every other copyrighted material.

Nepster (i think was the name) was the first free music site, when that was taken down Winmx, Limewire, Bearshare rose up. When they got hit torrent sites were next.

Plus the scaremongering is a horrid tactic to use on the youth of today as today's youth grew up with computers and have a far more astute knowledge than most adults care to believe.

kevpc

i am no business person by any stretch of the imagination but fail to understand why anyone would want to do whatever it takes to force their only means of income to rebel against them. it makes no sense to me at all. it seems that the general public are being made the scapegoats for an industry that refuses to accept that it needs to drop the way it has been doing things and adapt to the 21st century. what makes it worse is that it is offering nothing in the way of competition to so-called 'illegal' downloads, but wants any and all other types of industry, including ISPs, to do whatever it takes to prevent this action from happening. it wants to take no responsibility or action itself (other than to implement internet disconnections of its own customers!) or incur any expense but is not concerned with what it would cost the other industries to do its dirty work as long as it saves money itself. the attitude is that of a selfish, self-centered, spoilt little brat, blameing any and all for its failings except the real one - itself. and what right has the government got to give a private company the go ahead to spy on individuals, when that company has a one sided view, the ability to alter the information as it wants to suit its own needs and the way the information is gathered is extremely flawed (i wonder how many more printers will receive court summonses?)? it will eventually get its come-uppance. i just hope there aren't too many innocent people wrongfully accused in the mean time, especially as most will be unable to pay to defend themselves. be a bit naughty to get a 'record' of this type when you dont deserve one. perhaps just what the recording companies want. gives them an 'epic' win and more easy money, whilst putting the frighteners on even more.

charleyhellfire

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

Once again your facts are totally flawed.

THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Jeeez.

Isn't it? Ok then, show me the law which specifically states I can copy a vinyl LP and rip it into a MP3 file.

adouglasmhor

charleyhellfire wrote: »

Isn't it? Ok then, show me the law which specifically states I can copy a vinyl LP and rip it into a MP3 file.

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/tapetomp3.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cyberclinic-is-it-legal-to-copy-vinyl-records-to-my-mp3-player-441191.html

looks like the Uk is a bit behind

charleyhellfire

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

Incorrect. Recordings that were once only available on vinyl will need to be remastered in order to bring them up to the sound spec that is expected on a CD.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You a young musician then?

Vinyl sound quality is far superior to standard CD.

adouglasmhor

charleyhellfire wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You a young musician then?

Vinyl sound quality is far superior to standard CD.

It is on a good system.

charleyhellfire

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It is on a good system.

Of course.

:cool:

cherrynicola

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

And how would you feel if an arguement was raging on that you, as an NHS worker, should not be paid for your work? And instead should work for free? And listen to thousands of people arguing that you SHOULD work for free?

Actually, in my line of work, it would be considered totally unprofessional to not offer a free consultation to potential clients/patients if I were to undertake private work (the best analagy perhaps to listening to an album to see if you like it before you buy it?). I work unpaid overtime every day without question, and I (along with most other health professionals I would imagine) am routinely approached outside of work by anyone who is aware of my training for advice, guidance, signposting etc on their healthneeds, free of charge obviously! Now please stop twisting my words and being so rude.

Soubrette

charleyhellfire wrote: »

I didn't say it was, I have no problem with the initial product you've made, you should get paid for the couple of hours of work you've put in... expecting that same wedge of cash continually for the next 50 years is where the criminality comes in, especially when you've got the full weight of the establishment behind you.

I couldn't agree more with you charley - especially when copyright can be extended to beyond the original artists lifetime.

My voice is on my works answermachine, I do not get paid every time someone listens to it. I also have had the job of reorganising and rationalising the filing system, I do not get paid when someone accesses that new and more efficient computerised system thereby saving the company time and money every time it is used (I did get a very well done though ).

There are lots of things that I, and many others, do that continually enhances other people's lives but I only get paid for the hours of actual work I've put it - why should artists be any different?

Sou

MrsBartolozzi

Big_Catastrophe wrote: »

My position is this:
[...snip...]

So, what do I believe should change and what questions would I like the BPI to answer?

1. There appear to be two choices ahead of us if both the industry and the public are going to move together in full understanding (a) charge exorbitant prices for the product, have a small market paying those prices and a large underground market downloading illegally with an overall dissatisfaction for all; (b) charge a price that the market is more comfortable to wear, accept in the short term there will probably be less income despite increased sales, but look to the long term of decreased illegal downloading and increased public acceptance of you. So this question is which would you prefer to see, A or B?

2. At present albums on CD cost from £8 to £12 (roughly) for an average of 10 tracks of high recording quality. At present the average download cost (iTunes at the market leader) is £0.79 to £0.99 per track equating to £8 to £10 per album, however this time there is not the same distribution cost, manufacturing cost and the user receives a lower quality product. Given this anomaly, can you understand why customers are disgruntled?

[.....snip....]


8. If a new DVD comes out tomorrow, it'll probably retail at £18. In three months time it'll come down to £12. After six months it'll probably be down to £9 and after a year you can probably pick it up for £3-£5. Now, I know that the lifespan of a film is a lot shorter than some music, however if I look for an early album (Joshua Tree 1987) of U2 for example, I am still being asked to pay full price for it in almost all cases. .

What he said.

I always find it surprising that digital media that I use my electricity to download, and my plastic disc/mp3 player to make it useable, costs the same as, or more than the physical copy you buy from a shop (and own so can resell when bored of), with it's own plastic disc, booklet and colourful box...never mind the overheads of transportation, shop markup and manufacturing costs. I'd like this to be justified please.

On the high street people shop around, browsing the prices and purchasing their goods from the cheapest shop available whether HMV, Tesco or the poundshop. I imagine that online sites for downloading music are viewed similarly by many downloaders. Until digital downloading legally becomes significantly cheaper than getting the cd from a shop there will always be people who choose to "shop" at the cheaper (or free!) illegal sites.