UK file-sharers will be 'cut off'
Discussion
Jimbeaux said:
Funk said:
There is always a way around these things.
The point is we shouldn't have to "find a way" around such things to begin with.That's fine if it's only one or two people, but when it's the majority of the customers in a market, it makes sense for the suppliers to adapt, rather than to force their (non-) customers to follow the official route, with which they're clearly not happy.
I think it's just a bit sad that people feel 'entitled' to free films, music and software off the internet, its like being a benefit cheat with a luxurious house with a shiny new car...
However, I do think that people enjoy the convenience as much as anything. Things like spotify and last.fm don't make anyone any money at the moment, but they are a start towards something close to the sort of ease of use that the internet could bring to these things.
No problem with people getting cut off if they do it properly, and honest people don't get screwed over. hopefully labour won't be in charge to f
k it up completely
However, I do think that people enjoy the convenience as much as anything. Things like spotify and last.fm don't make anyone any money at the moment, but they are a start towards something close to the sort of ease of use that the internet could bring to these things.
No problem with people getting cut off if they do it properly, and honest people don't get screwed over. hopefully labour won't be in charge to f
k it up completelyMighty Flex said:
I think it's just a bit sad that people feel 'entitled' to free films, music and software off the internet, its like being a benefit cheat with a luxurious house with a shiny new car...
If they charged a resonable amount for a CD then ok.remeber when you could still get tapes? they were selling for £6 when cds' were selling for £12-£14
just think about all the parts going into a tape and how they get the music on there. A CD cost a fraction of materials and was hugely faster to burn so also saving on manufactuing costs. Yet they charged more than double while living in their mansions and driving Lambos'.
If the public feel ripped off then its no surprise they do things like dl music.
PS I don't illigally dl music because I prefer a hard copy and I am not condoning it even though it may appear like I am. I am just saying these people are in business to make as much money as they can and can;t really complain when customers do the same to them as they have to us for years.
Mighty Flex said:
I think it's just a bit sad that people feel 'entitled' to free films, music and software off the internet
I don't think I am entitled, I download to see if something is worth it and buy the film etc if it is good.Gone are the days where I will spend £20 on a DVD to find out it is totally crap, have you tried taking back a film that was awful? you can't, where else in life can't you take back rubbish?
I have bought more music and films because I downloaded it than I ever would have if all I had to go on was a review, the companies have got 90% more from me because of downloads.
Sheets Tabuer said:
Mighty Flex said:
I think it's just a bit sad that people feel 'entitled' to free films, music and software off the internet
I don't think I am entitled, I download to see if something is worth it and buy the film etc if it is good.Gone are the days where I will spend £20 on a DVD to find out it is totally crap, have you tried taking back a film that was awful? you can't, where else in life can't you take back rubbish?
I have bought more music and films because I downloaded it than I ever would have if all I had to go on was a review, the companies have got 90% more from me because of downloads.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal...
youngsyr said:
Jimbeaux said:
Funk said:
There is always a way around these things.
The point is we shouldn't have to "find a way" around such things to begin with.That's fine if it's only one or two people, but when it's the majority of the customers in a market, it makes sense for the suppliers to adapt, rather than to force their (non-) customers to follow the official route, with which they're clearly not happy.
Hadn't even thought of this:
"have you tried taking back a film that was awful? you can't, where else in life can't you take back rubbish?"
Also yesterday I saw a plant in a garden centre which had a label on it saying it was unlawful to propagate the plant without license, it was a geranium!
Makes me think that I should copyright some variety of Japanese knotweed, *accidently* spread a bit and then sue loads of councils and private individuals for illegally growing it... I've got rights dammit!
"have you tried taking back a film that was awful? you can't, where else in life can't you take back rubbish?"
Also yesterday I saw a plant in a garden centre which had a label on it saying it was unlawful to propagate the plant without license, it was a geranium!
Makes me think that I should copyright some variety of Japanese knotweed, *accidently* spread a bit and then sue loads of councils and private individuals for illegally growing it... I've got rights dammit!
The fundamental problem is payment for the performing arts:-
Before recorded mediums actors and musicians clearly received money in exchange for their time, easy and capitalism is based on your receiving payment for your time.
But when the ability to record comes along, it seems to go crazy.
When a painter sells his painting he receives money in exchange for the painting, he and his family doesn't receive money again every time the painting is sold
Since the argument isn't about the physical medium that the music or film is recorded on, when you buy a cd or dvd you buy the right to listen to that song or watch that movie. So why am i breaking to law to change the medium is recorded on, why do you want me to pay again when i buy it on another medium? Further more if i have bought the right to listen to a certain song some of that goes to the composer/writer some to the artist that recorded it, so if i buy a cover version that i already own, then i own the composer rights, just not the artist rights, so it should be cheaper for me
If i have paid to see a movie in the cinema since my ticket price goes almost entirely to the film people rather then the cimema, so once again i am buying the right to watch the film, so why should the dvd cost me anymore then the physical price of the medium?
If i pay to see a band live, why can't i record it as i've paid for the right to listen to these songs, if i own the cd do i get a discount as surely now i'm just paying for their time?
what has really happened is recording industry greed, artists should be paid to perform, they's their job, recorded medium should be a way to promote the performance and not the other way around, to keep people humming your songs so that when you come to their town they want to pay to hear you play. At the moment there is far too much, write some songs, record it, spent a few months promoting have 6-12 months off, receive money forever more
it gets a little more complex with actors, but certainly with music we've been ripped off for years, remember those pie charts about just how little of the money want to an artist from the sale of a cd, well since loads of those are missing segments are with online music, why is it no cheaper to download rather then buy the cd
I don't think piracy has been killing music, i think recorded music has been killing music, if your income as a musician comes from performing live, you have to be good, it can't be fixed in the mix and we get rid of polished plastic popstars
My personal hope is that file sharing will eventually save the music industry, that it'll break their monopoly and encourage real talent to tour and play live and the guys in suits and ponytails will be gone.
They don't get that the genie is out of the bottle now, you can come up with laws, ways to block it, but people will always find a way around it, stop trying to be King Canute, grasp the potential and opportunities
Before recorded mediums actors and musicians clearly received money in exchange for their time, easy and capitalism is based on your receiving payment for your time.
But when the ability to record comes along, it seems to go crazy.
When a painter sells his painting he receives money in exchange for the painting, he and his family doesn't receive money again every time the painting is sold
Since the argument isn't about the physical medium that the music or film is recorded on, when you buy a cd or dvd you buy the right to listen to that song or watch that movie. So why am i breaking to law to change the medium is recorded on, why do you want me to pay again when i buy it on another medium? Further more if i have bought the right to listen to a certain song some of that goes to the composer/writer some to the artist that recorded it, so if i buy a cover version that i already own, then i own the composer rights, just not the artist rights, so it should be cheaper for me
If i have paid to see a movie in the cinema since my ticket price goes almost entirely to the film people rather then the cimema, so once again i am buying the right to watch the film, so why should the dvd cost me anymore then the physical price of the medium?
If i pay to see a band live, why can't i record it as i've paid for the right to listen to these songs, if i own the cd do i get a discount as surely now i'm just paying for their time?
what has really happened is recording industry greed, artists should be paid to perform, they's their job, recorded medium should be a way to promote the performance and not the other way around, to keep people humming your songs so that when you come to their town they want to pay to hear you play. At the moment there is far too much, write some songs, record it, spent a few months promoting have 6-12 months off, receive money forever more
it gets a little more complex with actors, but certainly with music we've been ripped off for years, remember those pie charts about just how little of the money want to an artist from the sale of a cd, well since loads of those are missing segments are with online music, why is it no cheaper to download rather then buy the cd
I don't think piracy has been killing music, i think recorded music has been killing music, if your income as a musician comes from performing live, you have to be good, it can't be fixed in the mix and we get rid of polished plastic popstars
My personal hope is that file sharing will eventually save the music industry, that it'll break their monopoly and encourage real talent to tour and play live and the guys in suits and ponytails will be gone.
They don't get that the genie is out of the bottle now, you can come up with laws, ways to block it, but people will always find a way around it, stop trying to be King Canute, grasp the potential and opportunities
Mighty Flex said:
I think it's just a bit sad that people feel 'entitled' to free films, music and software off the internet, its like being a benefit cheat with a luxurious house with a shiny new car...
I'm not limiting my exposure to music (culture) based on not being a millionaire (I'd need to be with the amount of music I listen too). (No, it's not the same as not being able to afford a car etc)Many artists understand this, it's main the labels crying because they're easy money train has come to an end.
I will continue to download close to a terabyte of music each year, some of the artists will get money from me (be it from purchasing an album, or seeing them live).
Edited by Rusty Arches on Sunday 18th April 10:30
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Jimbeaux said:
Funk said:
There is always a way around these things.
The point is we shouldn't have to "find a way" around such things to begin with.That's fine if it's only one or two people, but when it's the majority of the customers in a market, it makes sense for the suppliers to adapt, rather than to force their (non-) customers to follow the official route, with which they're clearly not happy.
While I appreciate the idea of downloading to try, there are plenty of places to stream music to try it, and there is radio too.
Cds are a bit too expensive, really, All it takes is a little more clever promotion of the various ways you can 'try before you buy' legally.
Dvds are an absolute waste of money to buy, personally I'm happy with a cinema as a social event, or being patient to watch stuff on tv.
Cds are a bit too expensive, really, All it takes is a little more clever promotion of the various ways you can 'try before you buy' legally.
Dvds are an absolute waste of money to buy, personally I'm happy with a cinema as a social event, or being patient to watch stuff on tv.
piquet said:
When a painter sells his painting he receives money in exchange for the painting, he and his family doesn't receive money again every time the painting is sold
Pedant mode: There is something called Droit de suite which pays a commission to artists or the heirs on resale of their work.youngsyr said:
How many millions of people would download a bona fide HD quality version of Avataar from the producer if it were available worldwide from a secure source for £1-2 3 months after its cinema release ended?
How many people would actually bother copying it from their mates if it were just £1 to get a real copy?
How many companies would risk putting up $400m to produce a film if it was only going to be sold for $2?How many people would actually bother copying it from their mates if it were just £1 to get a real copy?
youngsyr said:
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Jimbeaux said:
Funk said:
There is always a way around these things.
The point is we shouldn't have to "find a way" around such things to begin with.That's fine if it's only one or two people, but when it's the majority of the customers in a market, it makes sense for the suppliers to adapt, rather than to force their (non-) customers to follow the official route, with which they're clearly not happy.
I was thinking of other accesses. As to file sharing of copyrighted material, I have mixed feelings. On one hand people should be able to share what they have yet, on the other hand, artists have a right to be compensated for their work. off_again said:
The problem is that over 90% of the bandwidth for consumers is consumed by less than 1% of the actual users. Since everything is based upon the cheapest price, we have a bizarre situation! Why on earth should I (who doesn't download dodgy recorded films from a handcam in a foreign cinema) pay or have my bandwidth reduced because of someone else? Ok, its not quite as simple as that, but the principle is the same.
The business model is based on volume and the bigger ISP's simply do not have enough revenue coming through to take the next steps at increasing speed, performance or available bandwidth. There is enough people complaining at the moment, and there is nothing that they can do about it currently. Given that the vast amount of this traffic is illegal (technically), it isn't difficult to take this to the next stage - just cut them off and suddenly your network runs like it is supposed to and everyone is happy - except the VERY small number of people who say that its an infringement of their civil liberties or similar.
Its a hard one to justify in reality and something that will gather pace as the problems get worse.
Maybe the future is subscription based? Spotify is potentially changing the face of music distribution for the better and it won't be long before someone does this for films too. Though the size of decent quality movies is the big issue here. The average bandwidth for consumers is just over 4Mbps and a decent quality film will take hours to download - not a fair use of the available network and its massively worse with HD content. If anything its the downloaders that are holding things back anyway - without the investment to improve bandwidth it won't get better, and they demand more bandwidth.... something has to give!
Given a decent speed network with good bandwidth, there is no reason why a subscription service couldn't work - but of course, lovefilm.com does a brilliant system of £3.91 a month and you can get pretty much anything you want and its good quality (even HD in some cases), includes the extra's and delivered to your door.... what can be better than that? Oh and its DVD / BD based - what's wrong with that? Of course you can rip the films to your laptop / iPod if you want and its not a problem.
That's the issue-bandwidth is far from infinite. If you buy a V12, you expect to have a bigger fuel bill than a Prius driver. In the US this has comeo to a head. The carriers want to charge essentially be volume. Seems fair to me. If you take a lot of space on the network, you should pay for it. File sharing and torrents are huge consumers which slows down response time. The carriers cannot afford to upgrade the network without incremental revenue. Same issue with iPhone which is killing wireless networks. Look for differential pricing one of these days.The business model is based on volume and the bigger ISP's simply do not have enough revenue coming through to take the next steps at increasing speed, performance or available bandwidth. There is enough people complaining at the moment, and there is nothing that they can do about it currently. Given that the vast amount of this traffic is illegal (technically), it isn't difficult to take this to the next stage - just cut them off and suddenly your network runs like it is supposed to and everyone is happy - except the VERY small number of people who say that its an infringement of their civil liberties or similar.
Its a hard one to justify in reality and something that will gather pace as the problems get worse.
Maybe the future is subscription based? Spotify is potentially changing the face of music distribution for the better and it won't be long before someone does this for films too. Though the size of decent quality movies is the big issue here. The average bandwidth for consumers is just over 4Mbps and a decent quality film will take hours to download - not a fair use of the available network and its massively worse with HD content. If anything its the downloaders that are holding things back anyway - without the investment to improve bandwidth it won't get better, and they demand more bandwidth.... something has to give!
Given a decent speed network with good bandwidth, there is no reason why a subscription service couldn't work - but of course, lovefilm.com does a brilliant system of £3.91 a month and you can get pretty much anything you want and its good quality (even HD in some cases), includes the extra's and delivered to your door.... what can be better than that? Oh and its DVD / BD based - what's wrong with that? Of course you can rip the films to your laptop / iPod if you want and its not a problem.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff