[The News Bot]

France is planning a controversial new law to cut off the net of users who persist in downloading music and films illegally.
More...

[andrew markwort]

Okay, fair enough - no matter how we wrap it up, making a permanent copy of something and not buying the original is theft, and I can see this 3 strikes idea being used in a lot of countries. But the film/music industry has got to play fair as well. E.g. being able to download films for iPod at a fraction of the cost in the USA compared to the UK isn't playing fair. And as soon as effective regional encoding came back in with Blu Ray, so did the 'we've got you over a barrel' mentality of the distributors. So whilst USA gets a plethora of titles at low prices, we're being trickle fed scraps and being charged top dollar for the privilege.

Before the music/film industry starts complaining about how much money they're losing from illegal downloads, they might start acting less like crooks themselves.

[Steven]

Hi

It isn't theft, it is copyright infringement. The difference is seven years

[andrew markwort]

It isn't theft, it is copyright infringement. The difference is seven years

Yes, but it's still wrong!

[chelsea.tone]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

Yes, but it's still wrong!

Agreed.

[Ned Senior]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

Yes, but it's still wrong!

true I fully agree

[Steven]

Its not even an argument of perceived value of a product. If you feel that strongly, then buy the proper CD album off an online store for a fiver (I trust nobody still pays rrp in 2009)

You would not say you felt U2 cannot justify £12 for rubbish and tell the HMV security guard you are just walking out with it as that's how much worth you attach

As I have said many times on the forum, its because since Napster in the mid-90s people do not feel they have to pay for music

I do not see what is wrong with proposing a three strikes rule. Are you suggesting two previous warnings was not sufficient and reasonable? But when your internet is cut off you suddenly understand?

[j0hn]

another thing is I ran into someone who thought because he payed for limewire pro he was therefore allowed to download as much as he wanted and it was legal. There are alot of poeple out there who are just alittle ill informed

[andrew markwort]

I do not see what is wrong with proposing a three strikes rule. Are you suggesting two previous warnings was not sufficient and reasonable? But when your internet is cut off you suddenly understand?

I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with the three strikes rule! For the record, I think that clamping down on fans swapping concert tapes or very rare remixes originally handed out to a handful of DJs is mean-spirited (since said fans have probably already got every legit release as well) but stopping piracy is perfectly sensible.

My comment at the start of this thread was simply that the Movie/Music industry seems to see this as a one way traffic and before they start acting like aggrieved innocents they might examine some of their own restrictive practices, which although probably not illegal, are IMHO questionable.

[Timbo21]

It's amazing how so many out there see downloading free music & movies as their divine right. What they don't realise is that all the music & movies they love to download for free wouldn't be there if everyone had their attitude.

Being someone who worked in the music industry for most of my working life, but now no more, I've seen how the music business has diminished, with many studios closing and people in all areas losing their jobs. It's not solely down to piracy, but there's been an increasing number of people who won't pay for their entertainment, including certain people I know in the police force.

Piracy is a general lack of thought for other people and an unwillingness to look beyond their own immediate wants. They often justify it by accusing record companies and film studios of large profits and ripping people off, which no doubt many have, but the majority who work in these industries are the same as anyone else out there, ie not loaded.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

For the record, I think that clamping down on fans swapping concert tapes or very rare remixes originally handed out to a handful of DJs is mean-spirited (since said fans have probably already got every legit release as well) but stopping piracy is perfectly sensible.

andrew

Whilst its nice you are taking a romantic slant, any talk of this is about that rare recording of the encore featuring the artist and his guitar with the band ushered off the stage is besides the point and not the issue at all, though somewhat related. This is predominantly about people using torrent sites to download album and dvd rips

Originally Posted by Timbo21

Piracy is a general lack of thought for other people and an unwillingness to look beyond their own immediate wants. They often justify it by accusing record companies and film studios of large profits and ripping people off, which no doubt many have, but the majority who work in these industries are the same as anyone else out there, ie not loaded.

I'd disagree with that

If you asked for a show of hands from a room of strangers, I think most if not all would agree in principle artists need to earn a living, and deserve to be remunerated for their art which others are getting enjoyment from

The issues are multiple. As above, the internet makes it easy to obtain high quality media and easy for people to get away with it. Why pay when you can get it for free so easily? And the authorities concentrate their efforts on the uploaders or those who download a collection to rival their local store so its all good
Secondly there is a higher proportion of people who think "oh they are minted anyway, it won't hurt for me not to pay"... or there are idiots like my flatmate who is a cynical **** and hates everybody except for 4 artistes at any given time

[Timbo21]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

I'd disagree with that

If you asked for a show of hands from a room of strangers, I think most if not all would agree in principle artists need to earn a living, and deserve to be remunerated for their art which others are getting enjoyment from

I wasn't actually talking of a scenario where you ask a group of strangers in a room, was I?

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Secondly there is a higher proportion of people who think "oh they are minted anyway, it won't hurt for me not to pay"

Yes, this is the sort of mentality I was referring to

[Tom Tom]

As a musician in a band, I see piracy as a double edged sword.

On the one hand I agree it is wrong, but on the other I see its merits.

It has been going on for a long time, all the way back to taping new albums for friends. (Its just much easier now with the internet)

I have to admit that I have downloaded things in the past. Usually its because I want to see if its worth my money. However with things like Spotify now I don't download music. I can vet it first and then buy it either from Itunes or a CD.

And with films, well as a student I was going to the cinema 4/5 times a week and buying DVD's and music because I had the funds. If the films were **** then it didn't matter. Ebay it, trade it, but now with such limited funds and "blockbuster" films disappointing on so many levels I resent paying £7 a ticket (occasionaly a drink) at the cinema for a film that it just bad. I watched some dodgy films recently and the ones I liked I bought or went to the cinema to see.

I see piracy of films as a great way of telling the industry to start making good films.

The trouble is I understand that 99% of downloaders don't use it the same way and are just creating losses from the companies.

The same goes in this ethos for music. It means an artist has to set a standard to live up to. Not just live off one great song.

Some times you tell people have tried, but it hasn't worked. Other times you think they gave up making good music a long time ago and are just exploiting their own name.

(Ready to be flamed)

[andrew markwort]

Whilst its nice you are taking a romantic slant, any talk of this is about that rare recording of the encore featuring the artist and his guitar with the band ushered off the stage is besides the point and not the issue at all, though somewhat related. This is predominantly about people using torrent sites to download album and dvd rips

Er ... this is sort of what I was saying. To repeat - I totally agree that piracy is theft (or breach of copyright; it's still misappropriation no matter how you phrase it).

Just to add to this - I've been a victim of piracy probably more than many on this thread. As part of my job I write textbooks. Okay, these are in a relatively obscure area of psychology, so they don't exactly make major bucks. Notwithstanding this, my publisher reckons that over the past ten years, I've probably lost the better part of £50k because of illegal copying (which is a lot more than I've received in royalties). And these illegal breaches aren't just technicalities like one student lending a copy of one of my books to their mates. For instance, I once by chance found a web site that had an entire chapter of one of my books freely available, with a promise of more to come. And I know of several sites where you can easily download entire textbooks.

[Phill1978]

we have some pirating at our work and i disagree with it totally but peoples attitudes are appaling. They dont pirate bluerays though and i doubt they will pirate 3d hd movies for some time when they come out, in the end its always the same people with low end kit pedaling poor copies to mates.. its low level but still damaging. I never see someone with a decent setup and an appreciation for quality doing such things...

.. which is why we are stuck with mp3 because the mass consumer cant tell there arse from their elbow when it comes to quality.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by Tom Tom

The same goes in this ethos for music. It means an artist has to set a standard to live up to. Not just live off one great song.

Hi

Obtaining copyright does not guarantee the author a living. Like other forms of intellectual property it grants a qualified monopoly, and is as much about controlling the exploitation of their creation as anything else

Originally Posted by Phill1978

we have some pirating at our work and i disagree with it totally but peoples attitudes are appaling. They dont pirate bluerays though and i doubt they will pirate 3d hd movies for some time when they come out, in the end its always the same people with low end kit pedaling poor copies to mates.. its low level but still damaging. I never see someone with a decent setup and an appreciation for quality doing such things...

.. which is why we are stuck with mp3 because the mass consumer cant tell there arse from their elbow when it comes to quality.

And meanwhile people are enjoying full ISO rips and flac copies of entire albums...

[beachcaster]

I recently found a website here in the uk called Spotify
it gives me all the music from just about anyone ...instantly for free !!!!!

I know too good to be true........its like being set loose in a sweet shop.

OK its also totally legal !!!!!

And the downside about onece every half an hour or so I have to listen to a short add.........not a problem then it goes back to MY music lists

it has a load more functionality
In a word its AMAZING !

Google SPOTIFY and find out.

Now heres the question..why cant the film industry think outside the box and do something like this.?

Why spend all that time and money prosecuting the very people who love the medium of film.

There are alternatives to piracy and Spotify is showing the way

barry

[pop80_uk]

I still buy CDs for my music, but the films is a very interesting topic.

If the film industry were to offer films for around £1.50 - £2.00 on a download (with a licence system to stop copying) then sorted, they get some money and the consumer gets the film.

Digi copy is step in the right direction, however, all most people need is a digi copy. Mass buy 1 GB USB keys and the industry could sell an off the shelf protected digital copy of the film for £3 - 5.

Just my view

[KelvinS1965]

We have some respectable, mid aged relatives who offered us a link/email address for some pirated discs that you pass around at a small charge, like a black market on line rental system. They didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with what they were doing. Rather than have a family fallout, I declined on the grounds that compressed pirated versions of DVDs would look poor on my (112") screen (which strangely they did seem to understand)....I didn't even go into the fact that I tend to watch mostly BluRays these days.

I agree that sites like Napster seem to have created a mentality where some see it as their 'right' to free music, movies, software or even (as posted above) books. If 'respectable' middle aged adults have this attitude, I wouldn't expect younger net users to think any differently, but there is nothing to immediately stop your kids from clicking on a file to download; ie nothing happens straightaway. I could imagine some parents suddenly finding themselves cut off from the net due to their kids (if there isn't a big enough gap between the 'three strikes').

[neilios]

The whole digital domain and the use of computers to both distribute and make music has removed the control of the record companies, the monopoly is over ,small artists can now produce and distribute there own music on merit ,rather than the same old artists rehashing the same old **** ,rammed down our throats through advertising ,the choice for people is huge now and nearly all artistic production is available to everyone ,everywhere .

Lots of different people can now listen and watch and read many books, films and songs which before where either banned ,unavailable or lacked distribution rights .

Its interesting to hear a big name dj moaning about blog sites and the dimise of his label due to piracy ,how ironic ,he wasn't moaning when said label boss shafted my mate out of his royalties in the mid 90's .

These companies need to embrace the internet and its customers instead of criminalizing them ,you know art in its different formats is meant for our enjoyment ,but somewhere it has ben lost in a haze of dollar signs.

[Filo25]

Originally Posted by KelvinS1965

We have some respectable, mid aged relatives who offered us a link/email address for some pirated discs that you pass around at a small charge, like a black market on line rental system. They didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with what they were doing. Rather than have a family fallout, I declined on the grounds that compressed pirated versions of DVDs would look poor on my (112") screen (which strangely they did seem to understand)....I didn't even go into the fact that I tend to watch mostly BluRays these days.

I agree that sites like Napster seem to have created a mentality where some see it as their 'right' to free music, movies, software or even (as posted above) books. If 'respectable' middle aged adults have this attitude, I wouldn't expect younger net users to think any differently, but there is nothing to immediately stop your kids from clicking on a file to download; ie nothing happens straightaway. I could imagine some parents suddenly finding themselves cut off from the net due to their kids (if there isn't a big enough gap between the 'three strikes').

As Broadband connections become faster though Blu Ray rips (which are already around) become more practical for people to download.

You're right though about this potentially stopping some kids who don't really know what they're doing but lets be honest the reason online piracy is so common is because people know you're not at huge risk of being caught particularly if you know what you're doing, all a 3 strikes policy does is encourage people to do whatever they like until they notch up 2 strikes, and if past history is a fair indication then you might be waiting a while for those strikes.

There's already an understanding within the music industry that the current way of doing business is doomed, the actions against uploaders and downloaders are more an attempt to defend themselves for as long as possible while they try and come up with a new business model that works, they pretty much doomed themselves when they didn't look to price digital downloads in a more sensible manner.

[woody44]

It really is as simple as this:
If a fair price is there for a fair product, then people will pay it. In Britain, we are ripped off left, right & centre. Look at itunes prices in the intercontinental stores, for a prime example! Americans would simply refuse to pay what we have to pay, but we happily go along with it all. Greed. thats all it is. Profit, is all the companies know.
It is this which drives piracy, & would not be so much of a problem if a fair price was asked!

[woody44]

By the way, my young son seems to have it sussed. He downloads albums & films, & if he likes 'em, he goes out & buys 'em. If he does'nt, then tough. The studio/artist does not get his trade. Isn't this a good thing?

[goodegg]

Originally Posted by woody44

By the way, my young son seems to have it sussed. He downloads albums & films, & if he likes 'em, he goes out & buys 'em. If he does'nt, then tough. The studio/artist does not get his trade. Isn't this a good thing?

All movies and music albums are sold with lots of hype.Therfore you dont really know what you are buying.
If you by a CD or DVD, take it home, play it and dont like it, you cant take it back.I dont think that piracey is the right but niether is ripping people off with substandard product.
I think that if you can download, limited time, lower quality version of product so that you can evaluate it and then decide if you want to buy the full product is an interesting concept.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by neilios

The whole digital domain and the use of computers to both distribute and make music has removed the control of the record companies, the monopoly is over ,small artists can now produce and distribute there own music on merit ,rather than the same old artists rehashing the same old **** ,rammed down our throats through advertising ,the choice for people is huge now and nearly all artistic production is available to everyone ,everywhere .

Lots of different people can now listen and watch and read many books, films and songs which before where either banned ,unavailable or lacked distribution rights .

Its interesting to hear a big name dj moaning about blog sites and the dimise of his label due to piracy ,how ironic ,he wasn't moaning when said label boss shafted my mate out of his royalties in the mid 90's .

These companies need to embrace the internet and its customers instead of criminalizing them ,you know art in its different formats is meant for our enjoyment ,but somewhere it has ben lost in a haze of dollar signs.

Its interesting that you are promoting the social rights of the public to experience artistic works because it is a shifting and misapprehension of the social, moral and legal boundaries of copyright as it has been for 250 years. And to suggest small new artists have a new lease of life. Well yes and no. We can all readily begin from nothing and use YouTube to promote ourselves, but after that they still share the same fight with the big players. Let me explain with as short a background to copyright law as I can

Economic
From the advent of the printing press 250 years ago, copyright since its inception was to protect the economic rights of the printer-publishers with the right to publish an author's work. Over the years, and with each amendment of the Berne Convention, copyright has evolved with technology and new forms of creating artistic works

Moral
Now morally, the purpose of copyright is to confer upon an author the exclusive right to copy his own work. No one else may copy without his permission. It is intrinsically linked with the economic rights. And why not? An author does not create 'art' to see somebody else try to profit off his own labour. But another aspect of the moral right is that it is also to protect the integrity of the author's creation. An author may have an interest in seeing his art represented properly and as he envisioned it

Social
Now socially, there is public interest in artistic works being distributed and performed. The public wants to be culturally enriched. But an author might be concerned about his economic interests, moral interests or indeed both. So copyright has attempted to balance the interests of the public with the author

It is important to note copyright is a statutory right, but it is not an exclusive right. There are exceptions, such as fair criticism and review. And it is indeed infringed by "copying". Incidental coincidences do not count. And I would also think it is very important to emphasise just how long copyright law has existed - it was not created in the mid-90s when Napster started up In light of that I move on to ~

The internet:

By being able to obtain material illegally, the author is deprived of his economic and moral rights and interests. They are taken out of the picture

People will say that they are not crying for the rich artists and record labels. But what of the small artists? You cannot try to create a tiered system; it would be unworkable and it would be trying to have your cake

People also say that the so called rich artists should do better and people will pay. Well hold on - its not good enough to pay, but good enough for you to illegally download for free? Well that either makes you a liar as you do actually like them, or you are attempting to send a message on the price you are willing to pay
Well unfortunately such a view is on a personal basis, whereas the contrasting view is so much more:
For the artists it is both a personal, economic and moral basis
For the record label it is mostly a economic basis

People wonder why 15 years since illegal downloading took off in a big way in the mid-90s, why the music industry has been slow to go drm-free and cheaper prices. Well now you know why

I think people should be more willing to be truthful about this - I will assert that it is purely because of the ease with which you can download off the internet that people do it. Nothing to do with furthering artistic creativity or fair pricing. Why not skip all that and hold a gun to an artist's head? Make it life or death - how motivating!

On the question of "try before you buy" - I do not buy that. You can preview on the radio, online through Spotify or iTunes et al. With books you can read passages in a book store. With art you view it. With films you have the trailer and reviews. Many of us watch a film once and then forget about it. No merchandising, no DVD purchase etc. So in that situation by downloading a film the artist is left between a rock and a hard place without nary a paddle in sight

On the question of works being made available where otherwise they would not have - well sometimes that is down to the law, religious or social reasons. Or if there are no such reasons then business and economics normally provoke a change of heart. Or maybe you think your song is **** and do not want it shared

It is not a one-way relationship. The public has an interest in culture and art. But it takes somebody to create those works. The public expect the business world to change unequivocally. But it takes two to engage in a conversation in order to find a way forward. I've taken a cynical view but I believe there is a lot being said on the high ground, whilst when the back is turned they are downloading a link

[chrishamer]

I expect to be shot down now but i would still like to make my point.
I used to download songs illegally at a rate which was pretty bad looking back on it now... (a few albums a month) I did it mainly because I had absolutely no money and out of boredom.
Yet since I have started owning relatively decent audio kit (and finally having money again...) I have bought 85% of the music i downloaded during those 2 years on cd. I love the idea of itunes but sadly aac just does not cut it.I must admit though that from time to time I have downloaded some music just to see what it is like. If an artist i like has released something I like to know what i am buying. However I do that less and less now due to there being a lot of sources 258kbit where you can listen to the music legally which may be at a low bit rate but it is enough for me to know whether I want it or not.
I understand why people download, i do not necessarily agree with it any more but i do get why people think it is their right. However what France is doing i find a bit controversial. it sort of paves the way to the internet being censored *shudder*.

For me I think the real solution would be to folow what artists like Radiohead and NIN have done ie actually putting downloads at proper bitrates up for sale on their website cutting out the record labels.

One other thing which has changed my whole concept of music is internet radio. Most UK radio stations are appallingly bad and play the same crap over and over but being able to find radio-stations that play music that you like all day is a real plus - more people should embrace it ^^
Just my thoughts you may shoot me down now...

[Miyazaki]

South Park sums up all the b/s surrounding the issue of copyright and piracy perfectly.

They did an episode called "Christian Rock Hard" back in 2003.

"South Park" Christian Rock Hard (2003)

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by chrishamer

I expect to be shot down now but i would still like to make my point.
I used to download songs illegally at a rate which was pretty bad looking back on it now... (a few albums a month) I did it mainly because I had absolutely no money and out of boredom.
Yet since I have started owning relatively decent audio kit (and finally having money again...) I have bought 85% of the music i downloaded during those 2 years on cd. I love the idea of itunes but sadly aac just does not cut it.I must admit though that from time to time I have downloaded some music just to see what it is like. If an artist i like has released something I like to know what i am buying. However I do that less and less now due to there being a lot of sources 258kbit where you can listen to the music legally which may be at a low bit rate but it is enough for me to know whether I want it or not.
I understand why people download, i do not necessarily agree with it any more but i do get why people think it is their right. However what France is doing i find a bit controversial. it sort of paves the way to the internet being censored *shudder*.

For me I think the real solution would be to folow what artists like Radiohead and NIN have done ie actually putting downloads at proper bitrates up for sale on their website cutting out the record labels.

One other thing which has changed my whole concept of music is internet radio. Most UK radio stations are appallingly bad and play the same crap over and over but being able to find radio-stations that play music that you like all day is a real plus - more people should embrace it ^^
Just my thoughts you may shoot me down now...

Listen to Radio 6 Music, it'll open up your ears to some nice, new music. ;-)

Its on a lot of the time in my house. Best kept secret in the BBC ;-)

[neilios]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Its interesting that you are promoting the social rights of the public to experience artistic works because it is a shifting and misapprehension of the social, moral and legal boundaries of copyright as it has been for 250 years. And to suggest small new artists have a new lease of life. Well yes and no. We can all readily begin from nothing and use YouTube to promote ourselves, but after that they still share the same fight with the big players. Let me explain with as short a background to copyright law as I can

Economic
From the advent of the printing press 250 years ago, copyright since its inception was to protect the economic rights of the printer-publishers with the right to publish an author's work. Over the years, and with each amendment of the Berne Convention, copyright has evolved with technology and new forms of creating artistic works

Moral
Now morally, the purpose of copyright is to confer upon an author the exclusive right to copy his own work. No one else may copy without his permission. It is intrinsically linked with the economic rights. And why not? An author does not create 'art' to see somebody else try to profit off his own labour. But another aspect of the moral right is that it is also to protect the integrity of the author's creation. An author may have an interest in seeing his art represented properly and as he envisioned it

Social
Now socially, there is public interest in artistic works being distributed and performed. The public wants to be culturally enriched. But an author might be concerned about his economic interests, moral interests or indeed both. So copyright has attempted to balance the interests of the public with the author

It is important to note copyright is a statutory right, but it is not an exclusive right. There are exceptions, such as fair criticism and review. And it is indeed infringed by "copying". Incidental coincidences do not count. And I would also think it is very important to emphasise just how long copyright law has existed - it was not created in the mid-90s when Napster started up In light of that I move on to ~

The internet:

By being able to obtain material illegally, the author is deprived of his economic and moral rights and interests. They are taken out of the picture

People will say that they are not crying for the rich artists and record labels. But what of the small artists? You cannot try to create a tiered system; it would be unworkable and it would be trying to have your cake

People also say that the so called rich artists should do better and people will pay. Well hold on - its not good enough to pay, but good enough for you to illegally download for free? Well that either makes you a liar as you do actually like them, or you are attempting to send a message on the price you are willing to pay
Well unfortunately such a view is on a personal basis, whereas the contrasting view is so much more:
For the artists it is both a personal, economic and moral basis
For the record label it is mostly a economic basis

People wonder why 15 years since illegal downloading took off in a big way in the mid-90s, why the music industry has been slow to go drm-free and cheaper prices. Well now you know why

I think people should be more willing to be truthful about this - I will assert that it is purely because of the ease with which you can download off the internet that people do it. Nothing to do with furthering artistic creativity or fair pricing. Why not skip all that and hold a gun to an artist's head? Make it life or death - how motivating!

On the question of "try before you buy" - I do not buy that. You can preview on the radio, online through Spotify or iTunes et al. With books you can read passages in a book store. With art you view it. With films you have the trailer and reviews. Many of us watch a film once and then forget about it. No merchandising, no DVD purchase etc. So in that situation by downloading a film the artist is left between a rock and a hard place without nary a paddle in sight

On the question of works being made available where otherwise they would not have - well sometimes that is down to the law, religious or social reasons. Or if there are no such reasons then business and economics normally provoke a change of heart. Or maybe you think your song is **** and do not want it shared

It is not a one-way relationship. The public has an interest in culture and art. But it takes somebody to create those works. The public expect the business world to change unequivocally. But it takes two to engage in a conversation in order to find a way forward. I've taken a cynical view but I believe there is a lot being said on the high ground, whilst when the back is turned they are downloading a link

I am talking specifically about all the styles connected to house music to be honest ,new artists can now release there own music unfettered by irritating and controlling contracts drawn up by people and organizations with no actual interest in the music only the pound signs .

Anyway here is an interesting article ,its all about the company not unfortunatly the artist .
Courtney Love does the math - Salon.com

The digital era has blown the whole shebang wide open .Never ever to be closed .
Its interesting to note my mate had a top 40 hit and features on many old skool compilations yet doesn't receive a penny due to licensing and copyright laws mean't to protect the artist(company).

[Steven]

Firstly, your friend needs a legal team, or a better one

Secondly, this is about piracy, not about whether a royalty rate is fair or not. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The only aspect which it does relate is that where an artist or band struggles to even get their 10%, you are depriving them even of that. Well done