UK file-sharers will be 'cut off'

[Ghisallo]

In Ireland, court found on Friday that Eircom, the main internet provider, can abide with EMI, Sony, Warner and Universal's three-strike rule against file sharers. Once the record companies detect sharing of copyrighted works, ISP is reported to Eircom who will implement the 3-strike process after which internet connection is cut.

[Frankeh]

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

This is a realistic alternative IMO. Obviously it would be nice to have unlimited downloads, but that's not realistic at all.

The record industries should probably just stay out of distribution now. They don't understand it at all. They can still be involved in the process with PR and recording for a share of the artists earnings.

It would be pretty easy to split the profits too. £10/75 = 13p - 3p for the distributor. Each artist downloaded that month gets 10p. Same system with the films, but larger margins..

The streaming would help people discover new music and then they would download it to put it on their music player.

The problem at the moment is that the illegal system is so much better. At the moment people are paying money for less service.

Edited by Frankeh on Monday 19th April 15:43

[10 Pence Short]

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

I think that's the kind of system that is realistic and stands to increase returns to the record companies rather than decrease them.

The difficulty still remains with people who don't recognise that unauthorised, free downloads are IP theft (whoever owns it) in just the same way as walking into HMV and stealing a physical album. Whilst the physical medium of music distribution has changed, theft is still theft and I hope those who steal music are punished accordingly. It isn't suddenly OK to 'share' music just because you're not stealing a physical item.

[Frankeh]

10 Pence Short said:

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

I think that's the kind of system that is realistic and stands to increase returns to the record companies rather than decrease them.

The difficulty still remains with people who don't recognise that unauthorised, free downloads are IP theft (whoever owns it) in just the same way as walking into HMV and stealing a physical album. Whilst the physical medium of music distribution has changed, theft is still theft and I hope those who steal music are punished accordingly. It isn't suddenly OK to 'share' music just because you're not stealing a physical item.

You have to ask yourself though, are they really losing sales?
Would these people have EVER bought the music?

Personally, I would have no music collection if I didn't pirate it. I'm not that into music, but I'll listen to some if it's free.
Same kind of reason I listen to the radio... Because it's there.

Films on the other hand, I do like. And I have a cineworld unlimited card to watch movies when they come out.
I also download a lot of films, usually before or literally just after release. They tend to be DVD quality.

If I like the film, I drive to the cinema and buy a ticket for it using my card.

This is one consulted and annoying way to watch new films at home. I would pay £20 for unlimited films into my home in a second. I would probably pay £30.. But I wouldn't advise that as a price point.

Basically, the illegal methods for me are much more convenient than the paid for methods.

It seems stupid to pay for worse service, no?

[tinman0]

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

This is a realistic alternative IMO. Obviously it would be nice to have unlimited downloads, but that's not realistic at all.

Haven't they tried those services and failed already? People didn't want to pay. What was Nokia Music for instance?

There are a subset of music lovers who will not pay for music regardless of what it costs. They don't see a value in the downloaded track because there is no tangible product to hold. Therefore, this intangible they download is valueless.

[Frankeh]

tinman0 said:

Haven't they tried those services and failed already? People didn't want to pay. What was Nokia Music for instance?

No one had done it right yet. Did the first plane fly?

[10 Pence Short]

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

I think that's the kind of system that is realistic and stands to increase returns to the record companies rather than decrease them.

The difficulty still remains with people who don't recognise that unauthorised, free downloads are IP theft (whoever owns it) in just the same way as walking into HMV and stealing a physical album. Whilst the physical medium of music distribution has changed, theft is still theft and I hope those who steal music are punished accordingly. It isn't suddenly OK to 'share' music just because you're not stealing a physical item.

You have to ask yourself though, are they really losing sales?
Would these people have EVER bought the music?

Personally, I would have no music collection if I didn't pirate it. I'm not that into music, but I'll listen to some if it's free.
Same kind of reason I listen to the radio... Because it's there.

Films on the other hand, I do like. And I have a cineworld unlimited card to watch movies when they come out.
I also download a lot of films, usually before or literally just after release. They tend to be DVD quality.

If I like the film, I drive to the cinema and buy a ticket for it using my card.

This is one consulted and annoying way to watch new films at home. I would pay £20 for unlimited films into my home in a second. I would probably pay £30.. But I wouldn't advise that as a price point.

Basically, the illegal methods for me are much more convenient than the paid for methods.

It seems stupid to pay for worse service, no?

My next door neighbour very rarely, if ever, uses their garden. Does that give me the right to commandeer it against their wishes and use it myself?

It's no argument whatsoever to say you can steal something because the other person won't miss it. Not only that, but it's also false to suggest the people doing the downloads are only downloading music they wouldn't have bought in the first place. Are you really suggesting someone has a sudden change in morals when they want to download something they know they like? I don't think so.

An artist has created that music, a recording company has usually invested in that artist and taken on risk and cost on the basis that it will make a return. A retailer has agreed terms to sell the material on the basis that it is not in competition with a free source. Forget the two middle men if you don't like them, but you're still stealing from the original artist. If they wanted it to be free they'd provide it that way.

You might not like paying for music, but it's not yours in the first place and I don't see what right you have to steal it?

[Blue Meanie]

10 Pence Short said:

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

I think that's the kind of system that is realistic and stands to increase returns to the record companies rather than decrease them.

The difficulty still remains with people who don't recognise that unauthorised, free downloads are IP theft (whoever owns it) in just the same way as walking into HMV and stealing a physical album. Whilst the physical medium of music distribution has changed, theft is still theft and I hope those who steal music are punished accordingly. It isn't suddenly OK to 'share' music just because you're not stealing a physical item.

You have to ask yourself though, are they really losing sales?
Would these people have EVER bought the music?

Personally, I would have no music collection if I didn't pirate it. I'm not that into music, but I'll listen to some if it's free.
Same kind of reason I listen to the radio... Because it's there.

Films on the other hand, I do like. And I have a cineworld unlimited card to watch movies when they come out.
I also download a lot of films, usually before or literally just after release. They tend to be DVD quality.

If I like the film, I drive to the cinema and buy a ticket for it using my card.

This is one consulted and annoying way to watch new films at home. I would pay £20 for unlimited films into my home in a second. I would probably pay £30.. But I wouldn't advise that as a price point.

Basically, the illegal methods for me are much more convenient than the paid for methods.

It seems stupid to pay for worse service, no?

My next door neighbour very rarely, if ever, uses their garden. Does that give me the right to commandeer it against their wishes and use it myself?

It's no argument whatsoever to say you can steal something because the other person won't miss it. Not only that, but it's also false to suggest the people doing the downloads are only downloading music they wouldn't have bought in the first place. Are you really suggesting someone has a sudden change in morals when they want to download something they know they like? I don't think so.

An artist has created that music, a recording company has usually invested in that artist and taken on risk and cost on the basis that it will make a return. A retailer has agreed terms to sell the material on the basis that it is not in competition with a free source. Forget the two middle men if you don't like them, but you're still stealing from the original artist. If they wanted it to be free they'd provide it that way.

You might not like paying for music, but it's not yours in the first place and I don't see what right you have to steal it?

Did you ever copy a friends tape when you were younger, 10p? Ever tape a radio broadcast? Never ripped a friends CD to your computer?

[10 Pence Short]

Nope. I never really 'got' the copying tapes thing. I did used to put copies of my own CDs onto Minidisc for my own use in the car. Aside from that I bought every CD I own and I'm not a big fan of MP3 quality music. If I want to sample tracks I can use a service such as Spotify. If I like what I hear I can order it for next day delivery from an online retailer. It's not hard or expensive.

[joe_90]

10 Pence Short said:

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

When these debates crop up, I'm always intrigued as to what the anti-record company people really want to see happen?

Some kind of subscription service. £10 a month for music, £20 a month for films.
Download up to 75 songs per month, stream unlimited. Download up to 6 films per month, stream unlimited.

I think that's the kind of system that is realistic and stands to increase returns to the record companies rather than decrease them.

The difficulty still remains with people who don't recognise that unauthorised, free downloads are IP theft (whoever owns it) in just the same way as walking into HMV and stealing a physical album. Whilst the physical medium of music distribution has changed, theft is still theft and I hope those who steal music are punished accordingly. It isn't suddenly OK to 'share' music just because you're not stealing a physical item.

You have to ask yourself though, are they really losing sales?
Would these people have EVER bought the music?

Personally, I would have no music collection if I didn't pirate it. I'm not that into music, but I'll listen to some if it's free.
Same kind of reason I listen to the radio... Because it's there.

Films on the other hand, I do like. And I have a cineworld unlimited card to watch movies when they come out.
I also download a lot of films, usually before or literally just after release. They tend to be DVD quality.

If I like the film, I drive to the cinema and buy a ticket for it using my card.

This is one consulted and annoying way to watch new films at home. I would pay £20 for unlimited films into my home in a second. I would probably pay £30.. But I wouldn't advise that as a price point.

Basically, the illegal methods for me are much more convenient than the paid for methods.

It seems stupid to pay for worse service, no?

My next door neighbour very rarely, if ever, uses their garden. Does that give me the right to commandeer it against their wishes and use it myself?

It's no argument whatsoever to say you can steal something because the other person won't miss it. Not only that, but it's also false to suggest the people doing the downloads are only downloading music they wouldn't have bought in the first place. Are you really suggesting someone has a sudden change in morals when they want to download something they know they like? I don't think so.

An artist has created that music, a recording company has usually invested in that artist and taken on risk and cost on the basis that it will make a return. A retailer has agreed terms to sell the material on the basis that it is not in competition with a free source. Forget the two middle men if you don't like them, but you're still stealing from the original artist. If they wanted it to be free they'd provide it that way.

You might not like paying for music, but it's not yours in the first place and I don't see what right you have to steal it?

Thats stupid steal!=digital copying... what about if you could 'copy' the garden, would you use it then.

Using the old 'would you steal a car' is stupid, if you could copy a car.. would you? If you could just copy that Veyron, just for 20 minutes.. with a less than .00000001% of getting caught.. you would not do it....?

Edited by joe_90 on Monday 19th April 16:11

[Blue Meanie]

Never copied anything... Ever...

First. person. ever.

[Frankeh]

10 Pence Short said:

My next door neighbour very rarely, if ever, uses their garden. Does that give me the right to commandeer it against their wishes and use it myself?

What if you purchased the land next to it (HDD space) purchased all the plants (Bandwidth) and created the exact same garden next door?

It's a silly example. The music industry are losing nothing from me because I would not pay for music no matter what.

If I could only buy CD's and the internet wasn't around, I wouldn't buy music. I think my whole music collection might reach 700mb, if that.

Now and then I'll plug my iPhone into my friends PC and copy some of his music but it doesn't get much of a listen. People just think you're a weirdo if they open up your iphone and there's no music on it :P

So who's money is going missing here?

10 Pence Short said:

Not only that, but it's also false to suggest the people doing the downloads are only downloading music they wouldn't have bought in the first place. Are you really suggesting someone has a sudden change in morals when they want to download something they know they like? I don't think so.

All kinds of independent research has been done into this, and people who illegally download (and admit it) spend more on music than those who don't. Most state that a lot of the time they wouldn't have even known of the artist if it wasn't for the illegal downloading.

And example of this would be "Man, you gotta listen to X" being posted on a forum. Person downloads it, likes it, then either buys it or buys the next album.

Either way that's a sale. And if they didn't like it? Then no one loses out.

[10 Pence Short]

joe_90 said:

Using the old 'would you steal a car' is stupid, if you could copy a car.. would you? If you could just copy that Veyron, just for 20 minutes.. with a less than .00000001% of getting caught.. you would not do it....?

Edited by joe_90 on Monday 19th April 16:11

So what you're saying is you don't think VW should get any money back on the development costs of producing that design?

And if you continue down that road, why would VW ever bother to design anything?

[joe_90]

10 Pence Short said:

joe_90 said:

Using the old 'would you steal a car' is stupid, if you could copy a car.. would you? If you could just copy that Veyron, just for 20 minutes.. with a less than .00000001% of getting caught.. you would not do it....?

Edited by joe_90 on Monday 19th April 16:11

So what you're saying is you don't think VW should get any money back on the development costs of producing that design?

And if you continue down that road, why would VW ever bother to design anything?

I was making the point you cannot compare apples to oranges, stealing (physically) is NOT the same as copying digitally.

But would you copy the car? Knowing you would never ever be able to afford/run it? (apologises if you can)

Edited by joe_90 on Monday 19th April 16:20

[Jinx]

Blue Meanie said:

Never copied anything... Ever...

First. person. ever.

Erm - technically if you are streaming something a "copy" is kept in the "buffer" and whilst this may be deleted it is still a "copy" (may not be a complete copy - depends how much is pre loaded) . The entire internet is filled with copies, use the internet you're using copies....

[10 Pence Short]

Frankeh said:

10 Pence Short said:

My next door neighbour very rarely, if ever, uses their garden. Does that give me the right to commandeer it against their wishes and use it myself?

What if you purchased the land next to it (HDD space) purchased all the plants (Bandwidth) and created the exact same garden next door?

It's a silly example. The music industry are losing nothing from me because I would not pay for music no matter what.

If I could only buy CD's and the internet wasn't around, I wouldn't buy music. I think my whole music collection might reach 700mb, if that.

Now and then I'll plug my iPhone into my friends PC and copy some of his music but it doesn't get much of a listen. People just think you're a weirdo if they open up your iphone and there's no music on it :P

So who's money is going missing here?

10 Pence Short said:

Not only that, but it's also false to suggest the people doing the downloads are only downloading music they wouldn't have bought in the first place. Are you really suggesting someone has a sudden change in morals when they want to download something they know they like? I don't think so.

All kinds of independent research has been done into this, and people who illegally download (and admit it) spend more on music than those who don't. Most state that a lot of the time they wouldn't have even known of the artist if it wasn't for the illegal downloading.

And example of this would be "Man, you gotta listen to X" being posted on a forum. Person downloads it, likes it, then either buys it or buys the next album.

Either way that's a sale. And if they didn't like it? Then no one loses out.

So your argument is that by illegally downloading tracks, you are exposed to new music you wouldn't have known about in the first place? Are you now saying every time you illegally download a track you like, you then buy it legitimately?

[Blue Meanie]

I'll post this again...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal...

[10 Pence Short]

joe_90 said:

10 Pence Short said:

joe_90 said:

Using the old 'would you steal a car' is stupid, if you could copy a car.. would you? If you could just copy that Veyron, just for 20 minutes.. with a less than .00000001% of getting caught.. you would not do it....?

Edited by joe_90 on Monday 19th April 16:11

So what you're saying is you don't think VW should get any money back on the development costs of producing that design?

And if you continue down that road, why would VW ever bother to design anything?

I was making the point you cannot compare apples to oranges, stealing (physically) is NOT the same as copying digitally.

But would you copy the car? Knowing you would never ever be able to afford/run it? (apologises if you can)

Edited by joe_90 on Monday 19th April 16:20

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.

[10 Pence Short]

Blue Meanie said:

I'll post this again...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal...

I'm sure fat people eat more salad than thin people. The only downside being the salad is in a Big Mac.

[cs02rm0]

It's not theft.