UK file-sharers will be 'cut off'

[10 Pence Short]

cs02rm0 said:

It's not theft.

In reality the terminology probably isn't right- it's more of a civil than criminal offence with regards to reproducing copyrighted material. Morally it's theft, just the legal definition doesn't cater for a digital reproduction situation filling all the requirements to complete the offence.

[Rusty Arches]

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Edited by Rusty Arches on Monday 19th April 17:00

[Frankeh]

The point is that NO amount of legislation will stop P2P networks. They will be around for as long at the internet is.

You need to make the experience better than the illegal experience.

The record industry thinks that rather than adapting to new technologies and making their experience better they'd rather make the competitors (P2P) experience worse. Hence this bullst legislation.

They're not adapting, and they'll pay the price eventually.

I would not have bought the music I currently have. They lost no money from me. That's a fact.

The last CD i bought was a michael jackson CD when I was six (First and last). I didn't use the internet until I was about 13. A seven year gap where downloading wasn't available and I consumed NO music.

[10 Pence Short]

Rusty Arches said:

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Whatever next, eh! Funny how intellectual property abusers never want to compare them to CDs, though.

The principle of copying and distributing those copies without consent has been around for years with the same old arguments for and against. The only difference now is that the medium is so much more accessable and instant. It doesn't change whether it's any more or less right to do than copying tapes, of course.

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

[HundredthIdiot]

10 Pence Short said:

You're not 'copying', you're stealing.

The intellectual property belongs to an artist or record company and they do not authorise you to reproduce it.

If you invented a unique product and it cost you £1m to develop, then sold one of your products to an individual who went on to copy it and give his versions away for free, would you be happy for him to do that, knowing his actions were jeopardising your chances of recouping your development costs?

After all, his argument is that by making the product free, more people are 'buying' it than would have at it's true market value.

Putting aside the rather dodgy semantic discussions regarding physical theft vs unrecompensed copying, I think it's important that the entertainment industry tries to have it both ways.

If I am paying for a physical product, then the industry should have no issue with me copying it.

If I am paying for the right to listen, then the industry should supply me replacement media at cost or as a free download (for instance when the CD wears out, or when the LP is superceded by the CD).

Of course they want it both ways, greedy b'stards.

DRM is just another way to eventually deprive people of the rights they have paid for.

Not that I am in favour of depriving creators of an income stream. I'm quite happy to pay for (and have in the past paid for) DRM-free music or videos. Except those are not available in my "territory" as far as I know. So sometimes I just lose patience and pay the Russians for it.

[bonsai]

Rusty Arches said:

I hope his little (C) notice at the bottom of that drawing was done ironically...

[Rusty Arches]

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

[Blue Meanie]

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Whatever next, eh! Funny how intellectual property abusers never want to compare them to CDs, though.

So compare it to a cd...

Store had a cd... Chap downloads the song... Store still has the cd.
Or
Chap downloads album... Likes it, so buys that album AND their other albums...
Or
Store has CD... Chap downloads fro iTunes... Store still has cd.

I have quite a few albums, and movies bought from iTunes, but I still download. Consider it a test drive.

[Blue Meanie]

HundredthIdiot said:

Not that I am in favour of depriving creators of an income stream. I'm quite happy to pay for (and have in the past paid for) DRM-free music or videos. Except those are not available in my "territory" as far as I know. So sometimes I just lose patience and pay the Russians for it.

iTunes, Napster, and amazon are all drm free I believe.

[10 Pence Short]

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

You don't get it- you would never get any money however many people listen to it. People would just download it from torrent sites. That's the principle you're supporting. You can't just turn around and say it would only be a small proportion of people. It's either OK to do for everybody or it's not OK.

[HundredthIdiot]

Blue Meanie said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Not that I am in favour of depriving creators of an income stream. I'm quite happy to pay for (and have in the past paid for) DRM-free music or videos. Except those are not available in my "territory" as far as I know. So sometimes I just lose patience and pay the Russians for it.

iTunes, Napster, and amazon are all drm free I believe.

I'm in Ireland. The last time I checked (a few months ago) I couldn't use those here.

I used play.com when I had a UK credit card, but no longer have that.

I know this is a UK-specific piece of legislation, but there was a time that the same issue with DRM-freee availability was in the UK. The industry have only started allowing DRM-free downloads because they in a state of file sharing induced desperation.

The same issue now comes up with video. I pay €70 a month for Sky but there's loads of reasonable stuff I can't do with the files so I end up paying for movieberry.com as well. I'm sure they don't recompense the creators, but what can you do?

[Rusty Arches]

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

You don't get it- you would never get any money however many people listen to it. People would just download it from torrent sites. That's the principle you're supporting. You can't just turn around and say it would only be a small proportion of people. It's either OK to do for everybody or it's not OK.

You don't get it.

More ears = more revenue streams.

1 million people downloading my album =

Physical sales (yes, some people love the feeling of handing a physical object, think vinyl)
Potential packed gigs
Shirts
Books
Art
Donations
etc

Edited by Rusty Arches on Monday 19th April 17:20

[10 Pence Short]

Blue Meanie said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Whatever next, eh! Funny how intellectual property abusers never want to compare them to CDs, though.

So compare it to a cd...

Store had a cd... Chap downloads the song... Store still has the cd.
Or
Chap downloads album... Likes it, so buys that album AND their other albums...
Or
Store has CD... Chap downloads fro iTunes... Store still has cd.

I have quite a few albums, and movies bought from iTunes, but I still download. Consider it a test drive.

Forget the physical product sat on a shelf. It's just a transport method. You're really buying the intellectual property and it just happens to be shipped printed onto a CD or hosted on a server to download.

If you set up a stall on a saturday market distributing copies you've made from a CD, it's the same as someone hosting the digital files on a server for people to download. All that's changed is the delivery format.

[10 Pence Short]

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

You don't get it- you would never get any money however many people listen to it. People would just download it from torrent sites. That's the principle you're supporting. You can't just turn around and say it would only be a small proportion of people. It's either OK to do for everybody or it's not OK.

You don't get it.

More ears = more revenue streams.

What revenue streams? Nobody is buying your music. No record company or retailer wants to work with you because there is no product to sell with any value attached to it. Your music may be stunning but there's no commercial value in what you're offering because it cannot be monetised.

[Rusty Arches]

10 Pence Short said:

Blue Meanie said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Whatever next, eh! Funny how intellectual property abusers never want to compare them to CDs, though.

So compare it to a cd...

Store had a cd... Chap downloads the song... Store still has the cd.
Or
Chap downloads album... Likes it, so buys that album AND their other albums...
Or
Store has CD... Chap downloads fro iTunes... Store still has cd.

I have quite a few albums, and movies bought from iTunes, but I still download. Consider it a test drive.

Forget the physical product sat on a shelf. It's just a transport method. You're really buying the intellectual property and it just happens to be shipped printed onto a CD or hosted on a server to download.

If you set up a stall on a saturday market distributing copies you've made from a CD, it's the same as someone hosting the digital files on a server for people to download. All that's changed is the delivery format.

Nobody is paying for file sharing.

File sharing is not at all like selling dodgy CDs at the market.

Once again, your analogy is floored. Try another

[Frankeh]

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

You don't get it- you would never get any money however many people listen to it. People would just download it from torrent sites. That's the principle you're supporting. You can't just turn around and say it would only be a small proportion of people. It's either OK to do for everybody or it's not OK.

You don't get it.

More ears = more revenue streams.

What revenue streams? Nobody is buying your music. No record company or retailer wants to work with you because there is no product to sell with any value attached to it. Your music may be stunning but there's no commercial value in what you're offering because it cannot be monetised.

You're so unbelievably wrong.
Live music and merchandise. Can you download a tshirt? Can you upload a gig?

[Rusty Arches]

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

You don't get it- you would never get any money however many people listen to it. People would just download it from torrent sites. That's the principle you're supporting. You can't just turn around and say it would only be a small proportion of people. It's either OK to do for everybody or it's not OK.

You don't get it.

More ears = more revenue streams.

What revenue streams? Nobody is buying your music. No record company or retailer wants to work with you because there is no product to sell with any value attached to it. Your music may be stunning but there's no commercial value in what you're offering because it cannot be monetised.

1 million people downloading my album =

Physical sales (yes, some people love the feeling of handing a physical object, think vinyl)
Potential packed gigs
Shirts
Books
Art
Donations
etc

[Blue Meanie]

10 Pence Short said:

Forget the physical product sat on a shelf. It's just a transport method. You're really buying the intellectual property and it just happens to be shipped printed onto a CD or hosted on a server to download.

If you set up a stall on a saturday market distributing copies you've made from a CD, it's the same as someone hosting the digital files on a server for people to download. All that's changed is the delivery format.

You wanted a comparison to cd's, so I gave one. I am not selling my downloaded cd's, (which I might add I could do with a legally downloaded copy as well), and not many people do.

[10 Pence Short]

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

What the abusers never like to think about is if they created a multi million 'selling' album and instead of making millions from it, people just downloaded it for nothing without their consent.

I wouldn't have a problem with people downloading my album.

More ears = more chance of money

You don't get it- you would never get any money however many people listen to it. People would just download it from torrent sites. That's the principle you're supporting. You can't just turn around and say it would only be a small proportion of people. It's either OK to do for everybody or it's not OK.

You don't get it.

More ears = more revenue streams.

What revenue streams? Nobody is buying your music. No record company or retailer wants to work with you because there is no product to sell with any value attached to it. Your music may be stunning but there's no commercial value in what you're offering because it cannot be monetised.

You're so unbelievably wrong.
Live music and merchandise. Can you download a tshirt? Can you upload a gig?

What do you think is the bedrock of any gigs or merchandise sales?

What level do you think you have to be at to make that a workable, permanent income solution?

Do you really believe that by selling your music for free you will be grow and be successful enough to live on gigs and merchandise sales?

Sounds very naive to me. You're not a musician, are you?

[10 Pence Short]

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

Blue Meanie said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Whatever next, eh! Funny how intellectual property abusers never want to compare them to CDs, though.

So compare it to a cd...

Store had a cd... Chap downloads the song... Store still has the cd.
Or
Chap downloads album... Likes it, so buys that album AND their other albums...
Or
Store has CD... Chap downloads fro iTunes... Store still has cd.

I have quite a few albums, and movies bought from iTunes, but I still download. Consider it a test drive.

Forget the physical product sat on a shelf. It's just a transport method. You're really buying the intellectual property and it just happens to be shipped printed onto a CD or hosted on a server to download.

If you set up a stall on a saturday market distributing copies you've made from a CD, it's the same as someone hosting the digital files on a server for people to download. All that's changed is the delivery format.

Nobody is paying for file sharing.

File sharing is not at all like selling dodgy CDs at the market.

Once again, your analogy is floored. Try another

Read what I wrote- distributing- not 'selling'.