Panorama - Illegal Downloading

[Guy Fawkes]

They do target the ones uploading, it's those individuals who have been receiving the massive claims from record companies.

From what I understand, the stories of the end users "getting done" have been because certain record companies have employed certain solicitors who have taken a somewhat scatter gun approach to the issue.

There were a couple of people in that programme who were taken to court and found guilty of downloading 1 song buy Scooter (they were not people who look like they would enjoy Scooters' music) yet were found guilty and fined heavily.

It was shown in the programme that software exists that allows other people to hijack wireless broadband connections either by hacking in or using software that disguises the original ISP address. This means that someone could easily download on your ISP without your knowledge and you are the one who gets prosecuted and fined.

Does a fine of £1000 seem proportional for the alledged damage to the band or industry for downloading that one track (one they would never have downloaded anyway)

Hardly seems to be the original uploaders that are getting done. If there was a real threat to them being caught and prosecuted, then the number of people actually uploading new material would drop dramatically and there wouldn't nessessarily be the material available to download for free.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I don't buy any music as I am hard of hearing. Music, sadly, does not play a great role in my life. I don'tlisten to music on train journeys (I read instead or do Sudoku).

People survived (as did I) for yonks, buying an album with one or two decent songs and the rest being 'fillers'. Music is not that expensive. I just don't see why people balk at the idea of spending £20 on a band of their choice, when people are happy to spend £500+ on a football team when there are no reviews as to whether they will be good or not.

Simon Jordan defended his prices against a West End play. Simon, you don't see the same play each week and there are no guarantees that they will perform exactly as they did the week before.

But times have changed, we are in a digital age where choice and variety is greater. Peoples demands have also changed, they expect more for their money now and there is more choice so people want to be more selective about how they spend their hard earned cash (especially if they don't earn that much)

And people do bulk at paying £500 for a season ticket for a season and thats for 23 games so a cost of £21.74 each match.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm afraid that the excuse of 'well i'll download it for free to see if i like it then i'll buy it' is total bollocks. If you want to listen to an album you can stream it (or at least enough to decide to buy or not) on plenty of sites nowadays, there is no need to illegally download it whatsoever.

But are the sites that offer the free streaming legal? Whats to stop people watching / listening to things on their for free whenever they want rather than buying a copy legally?

How do the music and film industries make their money from these types of sites if their product is given away for nothing? or are they really damaging the industries too?

 

[clapham_gull]

But are the sites that offer the free streaming legal?

Yes very much so, although they are still trying to work out how to make money.

How do the music and film industries make their money from these types of sites if their product is given away for nothing? or are they really damaging the industries too?

The services pay royalties/license fee to the artists/record companies and try to get that back through advertising. The major television companies in this country all have some form of online viewing and/or catch up service.

They are funded through the license fee, advertising and subscription.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

( The newspaper CD/DVDs are generally of low quality and the newspaper will make a loss that week if they have paid for the production )

So why not have a cheaper low quality version available for the general public to buy at a lower cost if thats the case,

Why do CDs and DVDs drop to just a fraction of their original retail price in such a short space of time? drop in quality, i think not? so why arn't legal downloads that much cheaper for older materials?

The papers tend to pay a small lump sum for the right to produce a batch of DVDs or CDs to give away, the cost of each disk is minimal in production terms. This means that each disk usually only costs a few pence per copy, the extra circulation they gain from the promotion covers the cost.

So why not have sites where people can download legally, paying a small annual sum for the right to unlimited downloads as suggested earlier, even if for old copyrighted materials. That sum can then be used to pay the artists. People would be willing to pay for legal downloads if the price was right but the music and film industry have to be willing to lower prices.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes very much so, although they are still trying to work out how to make money.

The services pay royalties/license fee to the artists/record companies and try to get that back through advertising. The major television companies in this country all have some form of online viewing and/or catch up service.

They are funded through the license fee, advertising and subscription.

With catch up services, some shows are not shown on it due to copyright, Match of the Day for example isn't available on their Iplayer. If you miss the show at the weekend you are unable to see it anywhere unless you record it (or borrow it from someone else who has recorded it). So is recording it breaking copyright?

As it was free to view at the weekend, so if someone missed it and chose to try to find a free version to watch later, be it by illegal download or whatever, how does that damage the copyright holder? If you miss MotD, you basically miss any of that weekends highlights if you don't have Sky (assuming that they show highlights again during the week there?)

If a film or programme is on TV and you record it to watch later, is that breaking copyright? because you are potentially costing the industry money as they are unable to sell you a copy.

The TV license fee is a small sum of about £142 per year, for this you get a far greater number of shows, films etc than you would ever get if you were to try to download them legally, and people have the opportunity to copy them to watch later, yet the tv and film industry survives.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

The only reason this new law will be brought in, is because the govenment are losing shit loads of tax.
If we are copying , we are not buying = no tax

Simple as that

 

[beorhthelm]

With catch up services, some shows are not shown on it due to copyright, Match of the Day for example isn't available on their Iplayer. If you miss the show at the weekend you are unable to see it anywhere unless you record it (or borrow it from someone else who has recorded it). So is recording it breaking copyright?
[...]
If a film or programme is on TV and you record it to watch later, is that breaking copyright?

yes and yes. always has been, its just overlooked. in the past the companies went after the manufacturers of tape machines, VCRs and lost. so now they go after the infringer, because we dont fight back until its too late, ie the law is on the statute books and another freedom/right to innocence till proven guilty is removed.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The existence of illegal downloading of both music and tv programmes is an inevitable result of the short-sighted greed of the industry.

I will continue to illegally download both for the following reasons:

Music disappears and dies without illegal downlaoding. For example, I wanted last week to get two albums of the Fixx from my youth. The ony place I could get them from out here is through illegal downloading. Many recod companies delete their back list archives and then this music is lost forever and we the populace, and those artists whose music is lost, suffer. Secondly, in the case of both music and tv it is all very well if you live in the country of origin but without illegal downloading, the licensing laws make it almost impossible to watch. I would never have seen Dr Who or Damages without illegal downloading. However, if the tv companies set up sites where I could get it online I would. They cant be bothered. So I illegally download.

There is a gap in the media industry right now between what the consumer wants and what the producers can be bothered to provide without losing profit. Illlegal downloading is the wake up call these companies need.

Ironiclly, I dowloaded the Panorana programme this morning...... illegally.

 

[phoenix]

I am currently being sued for downloading a game.That I can honestly say that I had never heard off till i received the nice letter.Apparently the companies that produce these (normally porn movies) sell them to a digi company.who then put them on line themselves.Just to entrap people who download.

What I thought was a good idea was championship manager. Eidos put the game on line for download,the option was to pay what you thought it was worth.I paid £5 then another £5 for all the updates for the year (new players,managers,etc).

Result, I have legal game that I would never have purchased,Eidos have £10 of my money
everyone happy.Buy the way the game retails at approx £24.99.

If anyone has had any problems with letters from law firms,feel free to pm me.I am not a solicitor,just someone whom has been wrongly accused.

dont forget it is wrong to download illegally.

 

[Bigtk]

It is unusual that someone who is generally a law abiding citizen feels fine downloading stuff for free.

Would you walk into a shop, pick something up and walk out without paying?

I hate how people use that anaology.

It is more like, would you walk into a shop making you pay money for something or the shop next door that is selling it for free.

 

[clapham_gull]

So is recording it breaking copyright?

As it was free to view at the weekend, so if someone missed it and chose to try to find a free version to watch later, be it by illegal download or whatever, how does that damage the copyright holder? If you miss MotD, you basically miss any of that weekends highlights if you don't have Sky (assuming that they show highlights again during the week there?)

If a film or programme is on TV and you record it to watch later, is that breaking copyright? because you are potentially costing the industry money as they are unable to sell you a copy.

The TV license fee is a small sum of about £142 per year, for this you get a far greater number of shows, films etc than you would ever get if you were to try to download them legally, and people have the opportunity to copy them to watch later, yet the tv and film industry survives.

No, "fair usage" allows timeshifted viewing and making personal backups.

Football rights are complicated and their non existence on iPlayer is do with the fact that another organisation has the online rights.

You really need to get to grips with the law if you are going to have a debate on the subject.

 

[Hannibal smith]

Just go down your local Library. 50p for a CD. No viruses. No letter and putting money back into the community to boot.

The socially acceptable way for obtaining cheap music.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The existence of illegal downloading of both music and tv programmes is an inevitable result of the short-sighted greed of the industry.

I will continue to illegally download both for the following reasons:

Music disappears and dies without illegal downlaoding. For example, I wanted last week to get two albums of the Fixx from my youth. The ony place I could get them from out here is through illegal downloading. Many recod companies delete their back list archives and then this music is lost forever and we the populace, and those artists whose music is lost, suffer. Secondly, in the case of both music and tv it is all very well if you live in the country of origin but without illegal downloading, the licensing laws make it almost impossible to watch. I would never have seen Dr Who or Damages without illegal downloading. However, if the tv companies set up sites where I could get it online I would. They cant be bothered. So I illegally download.

There is a gap in the media industry right now between what the consumer wants and what the producers can be bothered to provide without losing profit. Illlegal downloading is the wake up call these companies need.

Ironiclly, I dowloaded the Panorana programme this morning...... illegally.

So you only download things that you can't get legitimately?

The real issue here is about money making. Record companies will say that they need money to invest in new talent and cynics will say that they just need money.

The reasons their profits are falling is not just because of illegal downloading. Music companies used to control every single part of the distribution chain, from producing the music in the first place, to putting it on cd's to distributing it and then selling it. In the last 20 years with advancing technology all that has gone reducing the price of music (10 years ago £15 for a cd was reasonably normal, now £8 is expensive) and so reducing their profits.

With regard to the Bill, the controversial parts of it won't go through. In the long run I think something will happen but it'll probably fall short of disconnection.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Yes but thats pretty much everything over here in Turkey. I dont download books illegally. I order those from the UK because ı can. I can buy computer games from Steam so I do so. However, I hold my position that while the present climate exists I fully support illegal downloading of tv, films and music.

I think you will find that most illegal downloading happens outside of countris with full access to english-speaking media.

So you only download things that you can't get legitimately?

The real issue here is about money making. Record companies will say that they need money to invest in new talent and cynics will say that they just need money.

The reasons their profits are falling is not just because of illegal downloading. Music companies used to control every single part of the distribution chain, from producing the music in the first place, to putting it on cd's to distributing it and then selling it. In the last 20 years with advancing technology all that has gone reducing the price of music (10 years ago £15 for a cd was reasonably normal, now £8 is expensive) and so reducing their profits.

With regard to the Bill, the controversial parts of it won't go through. In the long run I think something will happen but it'll probably fall short of disconnection.

 

[Beach Hut]

There is no copyright law in Turkey so it doesn't really have much effect this debate however this will need to change if the become fully fledged EU members.

 

[beorhthelm]

No, "fair usage" allows timeshifted viewing and making personal backups.

there is no fair usage in UK copyright law, except for some rules around use of photocopiers, journalism and research. Its in US law but not UK. the iplayer gives you licence to watch later because BBC is allowing you to, i dont think films are usually available on it.

 

[clapham_gull]

there is no fair usage in UK copyright law.

From I understand it is referred to as "fair dealing", the law was ammended in 2003. In any case, no-one is going to be prosecuted for taping a programme.

The fact that programmes are available online goes well beyond what the broadcasters allow. All the online rights have to built into the individual contracts with the programme makers.

 

[little al]

I have about 35,000 songs on a hard drive, cost me £40 (for the hard drive).

Happy days.

 

[binky]

Musicians, actors, and other entertainers becoming fabulously rich, is a relatively recent phenomenon, enabled by technology.
Film and TV gave the artists fame and exposure, and the ability to record the sound and images in a relatively stable long term medium made the sale of that medium viable.

Now that self same technology which made this industry possible, has evolved to the point where the media is not only long term and stable, but also easy to copy and distribute.

What we should be seeing, is the industry either dissapearing, or evolving again, to take advantage of the new opportunities. (Dont ask me what these opportunities ar. If I knew, I'D be the millionaire).
Or more likely, a return to fair and normal recompense being paid to artistes.

Instead we see a business which is so hidebound that it is suing it's own customers in an attempt to preserve a very short term blip in the natural order, which made a small number of people very, very, very rich indeed.