UK file-sharers will be 'cut off'

[joe_90]

scorp said:

Frankeh said:

Name another product you can distribute around the world for 0.045 cents. Paperclips, maybe.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Sure digital distribution is the cheapest way to get your stuff out, but the problem is it needs DRM to prevent people simply copying it on p2p networks, etc.

I think the problem would be loads less, if you had a cheap subscription model.

For example.

Say you pay £10 a month for a much music as you like, Some people would download shed load (to begin with), Others would download very little.

Now, I for example, just buy about 2 cds of music a year (presents), honestly, if download was not available, I would buy the same amount. (I use : radio, iplayer, grooveshark, lastfm etc etc all the time) In this case I believe the artists would get more money from me than if I buy a cds (the studios take a huge huge % for distribution etc)

I think this would work.

They would get like £120 out of me a year, which is far far more than I would ever spend on physical media (and ever have done in my entire life). I think the same would work for films/movies too.

Also, the CD's I do buy are normally second hand stuff you cannot get, am I ripping off the artists that way again?

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 20th April 08:53

[Taita]

DRM punishes legit customers only.

See Starforce, and things like this: http://hothardware.com/News/Ubisoft-Patches-Assass...

[scorp]

HundredthIdiot said:

scorp said:

Sure digital distribution is the cheapest way to get your stuff out, but the problem is it needs DRM to prevent people simply copying it on p2p networks, etc.

It doesn't need DRM, in fact DRM has provably failed with music for obvious reasons. You end up punishing your customers and not punishing the freeloaders, which is just bad business.

Yeah the implementation is terrible and causes more harm than good.

It would be great if there was someway to purchase a license for something and keep it permanently. God knows how many times i've had to re-buy the same dvd (or videogame) because i lost or damaged the original, it would be much better if it was known i already bought a copy and then able to make as many copies as i like.

[Frankeh]

DRM is flawed because it locks down the legitimate users while billy pirate gets it all DRM free and FOR FREE. As long as phono outs work/there's CDs to rip there's no kind of DRM that will work.

The ONLY way is to treat your customers like people and not criminals.

"We're going to stop you from using this on another computer or ipod because we think you're a criminal and will give it to other people"

"Well fk you, Mr record company.."

I've been harping on about user experience and it really is the end all. It's also not hard to beat the user experience of P2P sites. On P2P sites you get varying quality, sometimes the wrong files in the case of limewire and such.

A good user experience at a reasonable price and the record companies would be sorted. Quality sells and it always will.

I wish I had a bit more drive and links with the record industry. I'd make this product and probably be a multi millionaire in 2 years.

[HundredthIdiot]

scorp said:

It would be great if there was someway to purchase a license for something and keep it permanently. God knows how many times i've had to re-buy the same dvd (or videogame) because i lost or damaged the original, it would be much better if it was known i already bought a copy and then able to make as many copies as i like.

The "licence" could be the proof of purchase (receipt) or just one of those holo certs that you get with shrinkwrap software.

But the music industry has expressed no interest in giving us replacement media. Far better to sell the same thing multiple times. wrs.

The attitude of the masses of DRM has been interesting. Initially I thought the acceptance (amongst those who did buy DRMd files) was down to rank idiocy, but now I think people (well, very young people at least) view most music in the same was as I view most films, which is as an almost disposable product. They cannot comprehend of wanting to listen to the same music in 20 years time, as I cannot really imagine being bothered to watch most films more than once.

[Frankeh]

scorp said:

It would be great if there was someway to purchase a license for something and keep it permanently. God knows how many times i've had to re-buy the same dvd (or videogame) because i lost or damaged the original

Rip the DVDs to your hard drive? It's pretty much a 1 click process nowadays.

[Mr Whippy]

Frankeh said:

DRM is flawed because it locks down the legitimate users while billy pirate gets it all DRM free and FOR FREE. As long as phono outs work/there's CDs to rip there's no kind of DRM that will work.

The ONLY way is to treat your customers like people and not criminals.

Exactly.

If you can hear it or see it, you can copy it to some extent, and that has been fine for those who want stuff for free since time began!

Take away the direct digital copies and there will still be good enough analog copies that those who won't pay for it anyway, will still be happy with anyway.


Indeed it does just seem to piss of legitimate owners. PC games have probably seen the worst of what DRM is over the years and it's not nice stuff.

It's actually quicker, easier and less stressful as an experience to D/L copies of games, than it is to mess around with DVD's and copy protection and constantly having the software think you are a criminal when you upgrade a network card or something

Thankfully Steam has made gaming much nicer these days, one logon/account and a record of everything you have bought. Lose the lot, start from scratch, logon and it re-downloads the lot for you.
Downside, what if Steam go bust?

Dave

[rsv gone!]

Mr Whippy said:

It's actually quicker, easier and less stressful as an experience to D/L copies of games, than it is to mess around with DVD's and copy protection and constantly having the software think you are a criminal when you upgrade a network card or something

I have downloaded stuff over the years but I always buy games. However, I also prefer to download the cracks to run CD-less (and often a lot smoother as a result).

Mr Whippy said:

Thankfully Steam has made gaming much nicer these days, one logon/account and a record of everything you have bought. Lose the lot, start from scratch, logon and it re-downloads the lot for you.

Fingers crossed I get my Steam games sorted now I've installed Windows 7.

Taita said:

DRM punishes legit customers only.

See Starforce, and things like this: http://hothardware.com/News/Ubisoft-Patches-Assass...

That is the sole reason I've not bought that game. You should check the Amazon reviews. Little about the game itself, mainly about the awful DRM.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B001TK3DO0...

Edited by rsv gone! on Tuesday 20th April 12:16

[Parrot of Doom]

HundredthIdiot said:

Parrot of Doom said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

Pretty much all media should be subscription based now, and it will be in the future.

Why "should" it be? Who are you to assert what people can do with the things they create?

I prefer own stuff rather than rent it. Do I have to give up that right because you think the world should be subscription-based?

You don't own the music you buy.

Well, yes and no. I understand the distinction, though you haven't made a clear point to respond to.

Can anyone tell me if it's worth attempting an adult discussion with Frankeh, or it is usually utterly futile? I don't hang around here as much as I used to; I've lost track.

The point is that each time a new format appears, you might buy an album again. Therefore you might buy the same album on four occasions. You never really own the music, but if you were allowed to download it in a lossless format, you would never need to download or buy it again. That isn't really in the interests of the music industry's business model.

[HundredthIdiot]

Parrot of Doom said:

The point is that each time a new format appears, you might buy an album again. Therefore you might buy the same album on four occasions. You never really own the music, but if you were allowed to download it in a lossless format, you would never need to download or buy it again.

Ah yes, cake retention and consumption. I think you underestimate their weasel-ness. What about the "2020 special edition digitally remastered version with holographic sniff-a-long extras"? Who could resist?

[tinman0]

joe_90 said:

tinman0 said:

joe_90 said:

tinman0 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....?

The arrogance of some of you people is breathtaking. Seriously.

You could copy a Veyron, and VAG would be at your throat over patents and such like. It already happens. People invent new ways of doing things, they get a patent to protect their innovation, and then license it on occasion.

But hell, you go copy a Veyron, because its a victimless crime apparently.

I have a serious question for you - Do you respect anyone's rights or is it just a free for all?

I mean copy, like the holodeck on startrek, not physically part by part.. Think of this as an abstract example, as if you could clone the car... This is not a real example, obviously I cannot wave a magic wand and poof, another car exists, I do not have a replicator.

What are you on about?

So the copy of the file you make, is like a holodeck copy? And therefore it's ok?

Please. There is a whole huge thread somewhere on PH. You are proving that cannabis is harmful.

Do you get the concept of an abstract example, it mean nothing, its just moot point. The point if you understand basic computers is that if you copy the file you are copying a file, its not the same as stealing, its copyright infringement, which is different. Its wrong, but its not stealing a physical item. If someone you work with stole your CD's (you left lying on the table) you would notice, if they came and copied all the CDs to a harddrive, and put them back exactly as they were, you would not know.. They would have broken a different law.

Digital files are not physical, the are a digital medium, you cannot 'steal' them in the classic sense of the word.

They key point is things have moved on (see VHS), and the companies need to adapter or die to these changes.

There is nothing abstract about this argument or your argument.

If you copy an music file then you get the benefit of the contents of the file.

If you copy a Veyron on a holodeck, you get a simulation of the real thing.

If I send you a copy of an mp3, it's not simulated. You have the real thing in your possession, and you get the benefits of the contents of that file without having to pay for it!!!

Please do not quote anymore Star Trek analogies at me, because I'm pretty sure if you copy one of their DVDs Paramount will also be on your arse.

[TEKNOPUG]

If I hear the latest Elton John single on the radio and then go and play it on my piano whilst singing the lyrics, in the privacy of my living room, am I committing copyright infringement? If not, why not?

[HundredthIdiot]

TEKNOPUG said:

If I hear the latest Elton John single on the radio and then go and play it on my piano whilst singing the lyrics, in the privacy of my living room, am I committing copyright infringement? If not, why not?

No, because you are performing the song not reproducing the work.

For public performances there is a different compensation mechanism, see here.

Pete Thomas said:

What About Live Performances?

Music venues and events (even quite small ones) have to pay a licence fee to PRS. The manager or promoter can (but often doesn’t) fill out a form which notifies PRS of song titles, composers and publishers. If you are performing your own material, then you can either supply them with the details, or else do this yourself. In very small venues the administration compared with the revenue often appears to make this not worth the bother, but you can now fill out the form online which can be worth doing for a composer/performer. If you play the same set every gig the work involved is less and you may even get a pleasant surprise when your PRS statement comes through even for small gigs. Medium to large venues can pay quite considerably.

Edited by HundredthIdiot on Tuesday 20th April 14:03

[Mr Whippy]

HundredthIdiot said:

Parrot of Doom said:

The point is that each time a new format appears, you might buy an album again. Therefore you might buy the same album on four occasions. You never really own the music, but if you were allowed to download it in a lossless format, you would never need to download or buy it again.

Ah yes, cake retention and consumption. I think you underestimate their weasel-ness. What about the "2020 special edition digitally remastered version with holographic sniff-a-long extras"? Who could resist?

Me

[TEKNOPUG]

HundredthIdiot said:

TEKNOPUG said:

If I hear the latest Elton John single on the radio and then go and play it on my piano whilst singing the lyrics, in the privacy of my living room, am I committing copyright infringement? If not, why not?

No, because you are performing the song not reproducing the work.

Even if I play perfectly and can sing exactly the same as Elton?

[Oakey]

Parrot of Doom said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Parrot of Doom said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

Pretty much all media should be subscription based now, and it will be in the future.

Why "should" it be? Who are you to assert what people can do with the things they create?

I prefer own stuff rather than rent it. Do I have to give up that right because you think the world should be subscription-based?

You don't own the music you buy.

Well, yes and no. I understand the distinction, though you haven't made a clear point to respond to.

Can anyone tell me if it's worth attempting an adult discussion with Frankeh, or it is usually utterly futile? I don't hang around here as much as I used to; I've lost track.

The point is that each time a new format appears, you might buy an album again. Therefore you might buy the same album on four occasions. You never really own the music, but if you were allowed to download it in a lossless format, you would never need to download or buy it again. That isn't really in the interests of the music industry's business model.

Exactly, their business model consisted of selling you your favourite albums over and over again on whatever new medium was popular at the time; vinyl, tape, CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A, etc, etc. What they weren't counting on was the digital age and the redundancy of physical media.

[HundredthIdiot]

Oakey said:

Exactly, their business model consisted of selling you your favourite albums over and over again on whatever new medium was popular at the time; vinyl, tape, CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A, etc, etc. What they weren't counting on was the digital age and the redundancy of physical media.

Part of their business model, but there has never been anything to stop you from ripping your vinyl to another format. In any case, these irritations are a separate issue from the need to pay artists a living wage.

[Gnits]

Perhaps a trip to the library to get some music and then listen to that.

The library is great, someone has paid for some music and is now sharing it with anyone and everyone who wants to listen to it but does not pay to do so... err that sounds awfully familiar!

Oh that's right I pay for the library with Council tax every month, I do that with other things too like paying for broadband... oh hang on...

[10 Pence Short]

Gnits said:

Perhaps a trip to the library to get some music and then listen to that.

The library is great, someone has paid for some music and is now sharing it with anyone and everyone who wants to listen to it but does not pay to do so... err that sounds awfully familiar!

Oh that's right I pay for the library with Council tax every month, I do that with other things too like paying for broadband... oh hang on...

A library is either donated a licence by the IP owner to rent it out or pays an appropriate licence fee to do so. The key is, they do it with the consent of the IP owner, who is entitled to set whatever price they feel like for that licence.

[scorp]

Oakey said:

Exactly, their business model consisted of selling you your favourite albums over and over again on whatever new medium was popular at the time; vinyl, tape, CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A, etc, etc. What they weren't counting on was the digital age and the redundancy of physical media.

I think the concern is with copying, to some extent people doing large scale distributiion copied DVDs (for example) can be shutdown, were as P2P networks cannot.