What are your questions on downloading & copying music legally?

charleyhellfire

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

That's a pathetic point. Breaking one type of law over another does not make you any less guilty.

Yes it does.

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

The founders of the Pirate Bay are now in jail, it's a moot point over what type of law they broke, the fact is THEY BROKE IT!!!!!

They are not in jail, they appealed to a higher court...and the Pirate Bay is still up and running fine.
:cool:

If you were any good as a musician you'd be making plenty of money playing live and not be bothered too much about 'illegal' downloads.

I tell you what; put your music up on one of the legal torrent sites and see how popular you are as an artist - deal?

jimbo49

sugarcoma101, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. however, like so many others, i suspect you have been fed a load of BS by the 'powers that be' and believed it. i remember the same things being said about radio, about tapes, about tv, about videos etc etc. all of which were untruths spread by the same type of industry we are talking about here. there are so many independent reports that say the exact opposite to the BPI etc. the truth is that 99% of people are not TIGHT FISTED and are happy to pay a sensible price for the downloads but the BPI are not even offering the service. they dont want anyone to download from an 'alternate' web site, but equally, dont want to offer sites and downloads themselves. they also expect people to buy multiple copies of the same music in different formats, so it can be played on different players as well as buy the various bits of hardware and software so they can put music on disks themselves, but not actually do it!! what c**p!!! the biggest problem however is that there is absolutely no way that any private industry should be able to spy on individuals, when there is a vested interest for that industry. governments cant keep personal data safe, so there is no chance of private industry doing so, especially when it is going to be handing that data to other interested parties!
as is stated above, breaking the law is breaking the law, but in cases of file sharing/copyright infringement though, they are CIVIL offences, NOT CRIMINAL offences as the BPI want to make it! do things right and there wouldn't be any problem at all. stupidity at its greatest!

sugarcoma101

jimbo49 wrote: »

the truth is that 99% of people are not TIGHT FISTED and are happy to pay a sensible price for the downloads but the BPI are not even offering the service. they dont want anyone to download from an 'alternate' web site, but equally, dont want to offer sites and downloads themselves.

I’m afraid it is you that appears to be misinformed here Jimbo. What do you mean that ‘the BPI are not even offering a download service’? What? Have you never heard of iTunes, the biggest music retailer in the world? You don’t think a service to download music fairly and legally exists?

Of course they BPI want you to download from certain sites, those that are LEGAL and you are PAYING FAIRLY for the product you are receiving. They don’t want you to download music from sites that are ILLEGAL and you DONT PAY for it!

It’s quite straightforward really.

jimbo49 wrote: »

they also expect people to buy multiple copies of the same music in different formats, so it can be played on different players as well as buy the various bits of hardware and software so they can put music on disks themselves, but not actually do it!! what c**p!!!

If you bought a computer game on a floppy disc 15 years ago, you would walk into a shop and nick the CD-ROM version now eh? If you have a CD, you can rip the music to your PC and transfer it to an Mp3 player, for free...so are you talking about vinyls then?

jimbo49 wrote: »

do things right and there wouldn't be any problem at all. stupidity at its greatest!

I’m really genuinely interested in what ‘doing things right’ actually means? What solution do you suggest then? And a feasible suggestion...giving a product away for free that costs money to produce is not feasible. And if you saying ‘charge a reasonable price’ what would you class as a reasonable price considering that so many people need to be paid for their work in producing a piece of music?

sugarcoma101

charleyhellfire wrote: »

Yes it does.



They are not in jail, they appealed to a higher court...and the Pirate Bay is still up and running fine.
:cool:

they went to jail for a year and were fined 3 million euros.

Big_Catastrophe

The posts in here seem to be getting a little of topic and personal, so a request to all to calm down a little.

We have a variety of people replying to this thread, one a musician holding court on one side (and on his own it seems) and on the other a variety of users of varying positions from those wanting to be fully legal, those unhappy with the current situation and a few I suspect who only download free, knowing its not legal and who will never change. I'll try not to judge anyone.

My position is this:

I'd love to obtain all my music via fully legal channels and use the music in a manner which is in accordance with all applicable laws. However there are some issues which result in me not feeling able to do so.

1. I'm not happy with the price being charged for many products and the theory of recharging to obtain music I already have, in a new format (e.g. LP to MP3 or similar).

2. I want to support musicians such as the one posting here, however am not happy when I discover that in many cases the musician/writer may get as little as 1% of the purchase price dependent upon the contract they are tied to (I am aware that in some cases it is up to 10% or more)

3. I think that the situation we have at present is a form of market force attempting to push the recording industry into a more reasonable position. At present they (BPI etc) feel to most music lovers like pirates by ripping us off as far as the cost of music goes.

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?

3. The old model that had been in place for years, gave users the option to either by a single or an album and nothing in between. The digital arena has changed this and I'm sure the change is still sending ripples through the industry. Singles were often seen as teasers to the more profitable albums. Now a user has the option to download only the tracks he/she wants, there is likely to be less overall revenue as many users will not download a full album (I'm sure also that many will still do this). This means that like it or not, digital music has and will continue to destroy the old business model. Given this fact, what is the comparative annual investment by the BPI on investigating a new business model that will protect the industry set against the annual investment in advertsing that many of its customers and otential customers are 'criminals'/engage in illegal activities?

4. Regarding use of products, in the U.S there is a fair use law, which allows the purchaser of a license, the legal right to fair and sensible use beyond the playing of a physical single product (CD) and extending to back-up copies (in the original intended definition) etc. Would the BPI consider supporting/advocating the introduction of a similar law in the UK so that a great number of its customers who are currently breaking the law by accident or by way of believing fair use should be in place, are no longer stigmatised and can use your products in a wider but agreed manner for personal use?

5. Regarding loss of business, what efforts are the BPI making, given the recent U.S. articles that essentially have finally put to bed any thought that the BPI's claims of the level of revenue loss via illegal downloads being remotely believable, to investing in independent research to gather some believable data?

6. If as an earlier poster suggested, individual tracks were prices at 10p and albums at 50p, can the BPI advise if there has been any independent research into the effect on sales and resultant upturn/downturn in profits of such price points, and whether such a dramatic reduction may have the very positive effect of encouraging illegal downloaders to become paying customers?

7. Regarding copyright law and duration of such, I believe that it is the right of a person creating music (the artist and writer) to earn reasonably from this. In the case of stunning creations (big hits as opposed to mediocre dross) I think they are entitled to earn well from this. However I do not believe that the right to earn from it should last forever and certainly not for as long as it currently does. How does the BPI respond to the suggestion that in return for the music user contributing to the artist/writers standard of living for a period of years, after perhaps 20 years (could be a different period, but certainly not as long as at present), the music becomes public domain and copyright ceases to apply.

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. If nothing else but for the goodwill of customers it may wish to win back, would the BPI support an industry discount system that sought to offer older tracks/albums to customers at reduced levels, say for example 75% of full price after 5 years, 50% of full price after 10 years, 25% of full price after 15 years? Such a movement by the industry, could serve to increase sales of older tracks/albums and reinvigorate the industry if done side by side with some of the other suggestions.

I'm sure I could come up with some more questions, but my fingers are tired of typing...

Big_Catastrophe

sugarcoma101

As you are a musician (artist), I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions.

adouglasmhor

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

That's a pathetic point. Breaking one type of law over another does not make you any less guilty. It's ILLEGAL no matter what type of law you break!!

The founders of the Pirate Bay are now in jail, it's a moot point over what type of law they broke, the fact is THEY BROKE IT!!!!!

No they are not - I trust you are only mistaken and not aware of the fine points of Swedish law.

Wikipedia wrote:

Under Swedish law, the verdict is not lawful until all appeals have been processed.[54] Both sides will also have the option to request the case to be referred to the European Court of Justice if any local court in the process requires clarification on European law.[55] The appeals trial is scheduled to start on 28 September 2010.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial
The case continues.

adouglasmhor

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

they went to jail for a year and were fined 3 million euros.

See my post above and apologise for going off half cocked please.

jimbo49

doing things right is offering people what they want and if you dont, not complaining because they go elsewhere. a reasonable price is around 15-20p/track and £2.00-£2.50/album. as for The Pirate Bay, none of that crew have been in prison, going to prison in the near future or had to pay any fines. their appeal is around September this year, so nothing will happen until after that anyway. torrent sites are search engines and indexers, just like Google, containing links but hold no files themselves. therefore the accusation that they 'file share' is wrong. the fight is coming when the music industry and friends try to shut down or restrict Google and other major web sites. if Google etc lose, then the internet will be finished and mankind can kiss goodbye to the greatest tool that has been invented to date! what an epitaph for the BPI etc eh?
look what we did! we couldn't get our way with the information highway so we destroyed it instead!!
whoopee!!

sugarcoma101

jimbo49 wrote: »

doing things right is offering people what they want and if you dont, not complaining because they go elsewhere. a reasonable price is around 15-20p/track and £2.00-£2.50/album.

That isn't feasible. Everyone involved in producing that music will not cover their own costs with that margin, especially the artist.

jimbo49 wrote: »

the fight is coming when the music industry and friends try to shut down or restrict Google and other major web sites. if Google etc lose, then the internet will be finished and mankind can kiss goodbye to the greatest tool that has been invented to date! what an epitaph for the BPI etc eh?
look what we did! we couldn't get our way with the information highway so we destroyed it instead!!
whoopee!!

Where on EARTH did you get this idea that anyone was going to try and shut down Google and therefore destory the internet?!? Absolute rubbish my friend, and dangerously misinformed.