The real price of dowloading?

aactually my point was that by borrowing a book or listening to music at a friend's house you're obtaining the benefit of a copyright work without having paid for it. The music industry would have you believe that this is depriving them of their livelihoods.
You tell me, how is it better to borrow a book from a friend and read it without paying than to download music and pay for the stuff you like?

I just heard on BBC's "Clickonline" that 17,000 downloaders worldwide are being sued.

It seems the historically (very) low chance of being caught (the reason for most crime by normal members of the public) resulted in a very low risk assesment by many file sharers.

Odd how the music industry never considered that their pricing policy was at least partly responsible for mass file sharing, particularly by the young.

Does anyone still remember the CD versus vinyl price hike for something that was vastly cheaper to produce? Not to mention the much lower quality. Or the later reduction in vinyl accessibility to enforce these vastly increased profit margins?

Lies, damn lies and the recorded music industry?

I am growing a little tired of the "let them eat cake" responses here. No doubt these same posters would not consider themslves criminals as they floor the accelerator on their high performace cars. Any more than these file sharers thought of themselves as criminals. No doubt many file sharers thought of themselves as fighting a corrupt system. How many drunk and speeding motorists consider themselves fighting a corrupt system?

In fact, being deliberately pedantic, the file-sharers were not criminals. At least compared with the habitual speeding motorist they were not. Since it seems that being sued for file sharing is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. Otherwise one would expect 17,000 file sharers to be presently locked up pending urgent police enquiries. Particularly involving such large sums which were supposedly their ill-gotten gains.

I won't even touch on the subject of all the other little "perks" and "breaks" the same posters (probably) enjoy. Even down to the odd bit of software changing hands without payment to the writers? The odd copied CD? The odd spliff? One drink too many before getting behind the wheel? The list is probably endless.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a decent enough cliché to use here.

And no,I am not advocating file sharing. I just wonder at the "snow-white" motives of those who pursue those that do. And those who cheer them on.

Nime

Nime like Fox Hunting there is no moral argument for stealing music off the tinternet.

However I don't have an issue with fox hunting and I have Azureaus running quite often.

quote:

You tell me, how is it better to borrow a book from a friend and read it without paying than to download music and pay for the stuff you like?

If I borrow a book to read and return I'm not copying it.
If I borrow a CD to listen to and return I'm not copying it.
Sure, the author and the supply chain are not fed when I borrow. But when I copy and distribute for others to copy then they only sell one (in the extreme case).
I'm not telling you I never copy CDs from others and check them out, but certainly if I like what I hear I go out and buy a collection of the artist's work.
The difference between this activity and the "LAN Parties" my neighbor's kid attends: I don't have a collection of 25,000+ illegally copied works; I don't distribute the material freely among others for their collections; I actually listen to what I buy (at least once); I buy copies of things I like.
No "high horse" here, I just don't understand how copying and distributing such works helps rid the world of the situation of corporate slime balls that cram sorry drivel down the throats of the masses.
David

I expect this is why Public libraries are becoming a thing of the past in UK, and if anyone indeed did want silence to study (coming from a big family for instance) they'd have to happily compete with the racket made by schoolkids at their suppose'd computer labs ?

Fritz Von Rightly Copying

One quite sensible argument I heard (can't remember where, could have been on here) was to reduce downloading (and increase thier profits) the music industry should start investing less money in pop music which is generaly aimed at the younger audience (teens) which don't have much money and are more likely to download and start investing more in music that wwould appeal to people 25+ that have more disposable income and are more likely to buy thier products.

Also only recently has thier been any legal way of downloading music which looks to be heavily used. Also legal downloading looks to be quite different from buying singles. They are about to start including downloads from the top 40. this is a link from the bbc which has some info on it.

Sometimes the unexpected happens,” said Premier Bob Carr in a statement to the New South Wales Parliament in Sydney, “that’s one of the interesting things about life here on this planet. And frozen chickens hurtling through the stratosphere, then smashing through roof tiles into people’s houses, is just one of the mysteries of existence. I can’t explain it. I had no role in it.”

Premier Carr was commenting on a spate of recent incidents in Newcastle, north of Sydney, during which frozen chickens have been seen plummeting earthwards at high speed, and punching holes through the roofs of houses when they reach the ground. “One theory is that birds are picking up the chicken carcasses at a nearby dump,” Senior Constable Tony Tamplin told journalists, “then dropping them in mid-flight, because they are too heavy. Alternatively, it might be the work of practical jokers, who are using a giant catapult to fire the frozen chickens at houses. But whatever the explanation is, the carcasses are hitting these homes with great force, and if they strike anyone, they could do great damage. I don’t want to make light of this, but these are battery hens in more senses than one.”

Later, Opposition leader John Brogden said, “I think it’s a practical joke that’s had its time. A frozen chicken travelling at speed could do a young child some serious damage. I mean, they’re heavy.” (AFP, 10/2/05. Spotter: Ben Chisholme)One of three Funny Old World stories from the current issue. More strange tales every fortnight.

Freshly Downloaded Innit:

quote:

Freshly Downloaded Innit:

only 2 months to find that story, well done Fritz.

quote:

If I borrow a book to read and return I'm not copying it.
If I borrow a CD to listen to and return I'm not copying it.

If I download a track, listen to it and delete it am I borrowing it or copying it?
If I download a track that I would have never been able to hear otherwise, listen to it, like it and go out and buy the album, isn't the music industry better off than if I'd not been able to download the song at all?
If I download a track and add it to my collection of '25000+ illegally copied works' that I *never* listen to but keep so I can brag to all my friends about my '25000+ illegally copied works collection' am I actually depriving anybody of their livelihood?

quote:

the music industry should start investing less money in pop music which is generaly aimed at the younger audience (teens) which don't have much money

good to see somebody's noticed one of the problems with the industry's arguments. Even if you could stop all downloading today you wouldn't necessarily see any increase in sales - in fact if the studies are correct then they'd actually lose sales. Who or what would they blame then?

quote:

Originally posted by John Sheridan:

quote:

Freshly Downloaded Innit:

only 2 months to find that story, well done Fritz.

You're right of course as it was only published in UK yesterday, otherwise outside of Sydney it would be totally unheard of forever mate, am I right or am I right ?

Fritz Von Getting the priorities on course without sarcasm, hopefully ?

P.S. I watched a report on Al jazeera (live) TV three days ago regarding a hostage, which was presented by the US madia yesterday as actual (from Al Jazeera) just a snippet of how it all works daily, innit (Al Jazeera are BBC trained too by the way ) .

P.P.S. Without seeming argumentative, which as you may know is my normal want ? The concept/Belief that teenagers have no money for buying CD's etc is for me beyond belief, and on the CONTRARY I would suggest they are the biggest market by a long chalk !

At the risk of seeming even more argumentative Fritz the 50-somethings are supposed to be keeping the music industry alive. At least according to a TV programme I saw recently.

It had not completely passed my notice that these young file-sharers usually own modern, fast computers and run broadband as a matter of course. Inevitably they all own mobile phones. Absolute poverty is not an issue here.

My argument is with the rotten old music industry. My own "file sharing" amounts to free CD borrowing at the library. If I like something and can't find it in the excellent second hand CD section at the music outlet in the city then I buy new. But only ever as a last resort.

I haven't seriously considered copying the CDs from the library. Though it would be very easy and probably completely undetectable. But I find I play something to death and then don't want to hear it again for a few months. So library borrowing is the best and usual way I listen to music.

I have noticed a number of modern compilations of my favorite (electric folk) music are way below the quality of the original CDs. So paying full price for what amounts to a couple of poorly reproduced tracks (which I haven't heard before) is very irritating. The Celtic Circle series is a case in point. A rip-off in quality terms however desirable musically.

There is also the matter of DVD films often being much cheaper than full price CDs. Why?

I suppose it depends on wether we're talking Worldwide or local here, innit me old exile´?


Fritz Von Good Weekend

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
You're right of course as it was only published in UK yesterday, otherwise outside of Sydney it would be totally unheard of forever mate, am I right or am I right ?

well, dunno, flying frozen chickens aren't exactly common.

The bottom line is the music industry (read the record companies) have been ripping the consumer off for years. Simple economics in my book: high prices = low volume whereas low prices = high volume. So what happens, with high prices people download but do not buy. With low prices I suspect that those who download will buy.

If any record industry moguls are reading this (which is most unlikely, I guess) then for the record I do not download (don't know how to!!!let alone where to look!!!have not tried) but their actions are so ridiculous eg biting the arm that feeds that I rarely buy new releases. Years back in the days of vinyl when prices were reasonable I would buy things on a whim without having listened before hand. Come cd and the increases in price I stopped that practice. I wonder how many others have reacted in the way that I have???

Mike

I also rarely buy on a whim with the prices like they are.
Maybe I didn't say it well in the other posts, but borrowing a book is FAR different than copying one and distributing it.
This is what keeps the music industry up at night planning bad music and sound degrading copy protection schemes.
Davd

quote:

Maybe I didn't say it well in the other posts, but borrowing a book is FAR different than copying one and distributing it.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the difference between me reading a book I haven't paid for and listening to a song I haven't paid for. Perhaps you'd care to explain the difference.

When you borrow a book the original purchaser cannot read the book - whereas a copied book or CD can be read/played by the purchaser and borrower at the same time but in different locations

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
When you borrow a book the original purchaser cannot read the book - whereas a copied book or CD can be read/played by the purchaser and borrower at the same time but in different locations

so it would be perfectly ok for everyone to download as many songs as they could as long as only one person listened at a time?

Yes - because people would get fed up of waiting for their turn and so they would go and buy an additional copy.

You would probably get to hear a specific tune once every year or less - if you miss your turn you have to wait another year - this is now getting to sound like a government run supply process - NHS anyone

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Yes - because people would get fed up of waiting for their turn and so they would go and buy an additional copy.

but I'd have thousands of songs to choose from so while I might have to wait for a year to hear a particular song I could probably manage to at least listen to something. Maybe I'd discover something new? Maybe I'd then like the new stuff so much I'd go and buy it. Nah, that would never work.

quantity does not always imply quality - your model might well save a lot of people from listening to a load of drivel and would identify the music worth buying because you would want it now

quote:

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the difference between me reading a book I haven't paid for and listening to a song I haven't paid for. Perhaps you'd care to explain the difference.

No difference. Borrowing a single book to read is the same as making thousands of copies of it and spreading it all over the world via an electronic communication channel that allows virtually instant access and copies that are indistiguishable from the original.
Sorry about the confusion.
David

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:
No difference. Borrowing a single book to read is the same as making thousands of copies of it and spreading it all over the world via an electronic communication channel that allows virtually instant access and copies that are indistiguishable from the original.
Sorry about the confusion.
David

you're not answering my question. We'll ignore for the moment that you think mp3s are just as good as the original. I asked, "what's the difference between ME borrowing a book I haven't paid for and ME listening to a song I haven't paid for." I DID NOT ASK anything about anyone lending books or distributing music.

Dudes, checkout what Courtney
thinks.

quote:

you're not answering my question. We'll ignore for the moment that you think mp3s are just as good as the original. I asked, "what's the difference between ME borrowing a book I haven't paid for and ME listening to a song I haven't paid for." I DID NOT ASK anything about anyone lending books or distributing music.

Have you ever sat in a book store and read a book from cover to cover, replacing it on the shelf only to get another to do the same?
If so, how did the manager like it?
Is this what you're talking about? How else are you going to read a book without paying for it unless someone loans you theirs?
Fat chance someone is going to the trouble of copying a book and distributing it.
Not so with digital music.
As to mp3 quality: A COPIED mp3 will sound just like the original mp3 if it is simply copied.
When did I ever say that an mp3 sounds as good as an original? If you mean that I think an mp3 sounds like the original CD quality recording then that is an interesting interpretation.
I'm trying to make the point that the music companies are worried about distribution of "their" music. Not loaning your CD to me.
There is no difference between borrowing a book and borrowing a CD at least in the USA.
Artists get screwed by the labels. The labels want to control the market. They have powerful lobbies. A natural extension of this is the saber rattling of crushing kids who illegally copy their "property". And the labels are still bad guys.
And we get N-Sync on the radio.

I have a solution: Dump this digital media thing and go back to vinyl. Make digital music a crime. Vinyl sounds better and is harder to copy and distribute.

Anyway, this discussion has been entertaining. I think I'll just watch now.
David