Panorama - Illegal Downloading

[clippedgull]

Billy Bragg had a good point.

If an artist can find 5,000 people on the Internet to pay £10 then that's a reasonable living.

Also interesting that 'file sharers' in a poll spent more on legal music than people that don't file share.

Plenty of free advertising for The Pirate Bay on the programme too!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

If the figures used in that Panorama show are correct, the music industry could be losing revenue if illegal downloads are stopped. The figures used were that people who download illegally spend on average £77 per year on music, whereas those who download legally only spend £44 per year.

Also there were a large number of illegal downloaders who use it as a trial service, if they like what they hear, they end up buying the album / going to live gigs - or in the case of films they end up seeing the film at the cinema / buying the DVD. It could also be argued that by downloading illegally, more artists get exposure and a fan base, meaning that their profile gets raised and they get extra revenue when these people buy either cd's or go to live gigs.

If the people Illegal downloading were stopped, it doesn't mean that they would spend more money than they currently do on music and film as a result, and its naive to think so.

Price has a lot more to do with people choosing to download, people don't want to be ripped off and have to pay upto £20 or a DVD or £17 for a CD, especially when they know it will be on sale for a fraction of that cost a few months later. Or high prices for material that hasn't been in general circulation for ages either. Often some buy proper versions once the price drops to more reasonable levels.

I guess some people also see it more like being lent a dvd or cd by a mate to use, does the music or film industry target people who do this although this is technically also breaching copyright and has been happening for far longer than illegal downloads.

Maybe one solution would be to have sites people can pay a reasonable sum per annum to have unlimited downloads, rather than the over inflated prices people face today. If Newspapers can give away films and cds, even though they have a cover price of only about 40p, how can charging a couple of quid+ for a legal download / buying from a shop of the same thing be justified?

People would be more willing to pay to download If people knew that a) artists were getting rewarded for their work b) they were not being over charged for downloads c) they knew that they were getting a quality copy then i think people would be willing to pay a fair price. (suggested price £1-2 per week)

 

[Barrel of Fun]

How do you spend £77 downloading illegally?

 

[clapham_gull]

If the figures used in that Panorama show are correct, the music industry could be losing revenue if illegal downloads are stopped. The figures used were that people who download illegally spend on average £77 per year on music, whereas those who download legally only spend £44 per year.

They never drew the link, all it said was that people who download a lot of music illegally also happen to buy it too.

You can interpret that as you want, but I think it's stretching the point to suggest that if the illegal download tap was turned off those people would simply stop buying music.

They would simply stop consuming it ? I doubt it, because they were consuming it before downloading was possible.

There are numerous places where music can be previewed, or even listened free (at a lower bitrate) like Spotify.

There is no getting away from the fact that people are simply getting away with not paying for something because generally they can.

It's a bit like leaving the doors of the off office licence open after hours and expecting people not to take an odd sip from a bottle.

Added to the above, music has been ridiculously expensive for years and over promoted, so I have little concern for the record company PRs and the like who have grown fat on the back of someone else's talent.

But copyright theft effects a lot of people much lower down the chain as well. We generally wouldn't accept theft from a shop so why is theft of music ok ?

( 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 )

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Whether or not you think they get paid too much is neither here nor there.

What about actors getting paid obscene amounts for a film? Or Brighton players earning more than our Prime Minister? What about Crozier taking home £1m plus for his work at Royal Mail?

It is still theft.

So why target the end user not the original uploader of these items? - they are surely causing far more damage to the industries. (especially those who put films on the net or albums out before they are officially released anywhere)

If their approach here was adapted and used elsewhere in tackling amoral behaviour, e.g. the drug industry, it would be only the end drug users who would be the ones being targeted by the authorities rather than those who bulk buy with intent to supply, or those who import the drugs into the country in the first place.

So therefore if their prosecute the end user approach to end the industry was used in the drug industry, the importers / suppliers would seem to be free to continue their activities, even though it could shown that they are the once who are doing the real damage.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

So why target the end user not the original uploader of these items? - they are surely causing far more damage to the industries. (especially those who put films on the net or albums out before they are officially released anywhere)

If their approach here was adapted and used elsewhere in tackling amoral behaviour, e.g. the drug industry, it would be only the end drug users who would be the ones being targeted by the authorities rather than those who bulk buy with intent to supply, or those who import the drugs into the country in the first place.

So therefore if their prosecute the end user approach to end the industry was used in the drug industry, the importers / suppliers would seem to be free to continue their activities, even though it could shown that they are the once who are doing the real damage.

Do they not target the primary source?

 

[beorhthelm]

But copyright theft effects a lot of people much lower down the chain as well. We generally wouldn't accept theft from a shop so why is theft of music ok ?

i dont defend piracy, but i do tire of that line being trotted out. its obviously different, the shop loses a physical item which they cannot sell, it is a material loss. if person a downloads an album there is no material loss, that person *might* buy it legitimatly.

if it were the same, why do we have a seperate legal word for it, different law and punishment?

and i'll venture that piracy does actuall only hurt the large corporations with their pop factories. the good stuff would be produced anyway. alot of crap stuff would be produced anyway. music was being written long before copyright law covered it and will certainly survive this change. we are exposed to far more music than before due to the internet and the quality/niche artists are doing well. they still need studio engineers, producers cover artists, distrubution companies etc

 

[clapham_gull]

So why target the end user not the original uploader of these items? - they are surely causing far more damage to the industries. (especially those who put films on the net or albums out before they are officially released anywhere)

If their approach here was adapted and used elsewhere in tackling amoral behaviour, e.g. the drug industry, it would be only the end drug users who would be the ones being targeted by the authorities rather than those who bulk buy with intent to supply, or those who import the drugs into the country in the first place.

So therefore if their prosecute the end user approach to end the industry was used in the drug industry, the importers / suppliers would seem to be free to continue their activities, even though it could shown that they are the once who are doing the real damage.

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.

 

[Kukev31]

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?

It's not really the same though. Music in it's digital form has no inherent monetary value. It has no physical existence and can be endlessly replicated for nothing.

 

[clapham_gull]

i dont defend piracy, but i do tire of that line being trotted out.

Whether there is a material loss or the large companies simply use it as an excuse to lay people off it has an effect on jobs. It's even something that the Unions representing media workers (usually the low paid ones) are worried about. Get yourself a copy of the BECTU magazine.

I agree record companies have got fat on the back of excessive prices for years, but then again I'm not sure that downloaders are targeting particular companies.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

How do you spend £77 downloading illegally?

It was the figure they gave, it could be that they were downloading an album for free, if they liked it then they went out to buy the album on CD from a shop / online, hence spending the money then.

Would you go out and buy an album by an artist if you had heard just 1 song? and if you did then found you disliked everything else on that album currently the industry doesn't really allow you to get a refund on that album so you have basically wasted your money. Surely thats a part of the music industry rip off that they need to change (although i guess they do not refund because they are worried that people will just buy to copy the album before returning and basically getting a copy for free). Other industries give you more scope to return items you are unhappy with without question.

Another con they use in the music industry is to release an album which people buy, but then they release a version 2 of that same album but with an extra couple of tracks meaning that you have to buy another copy of an almost identical album to get the extra material as you can't exchange your version 1 copy for the other version.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's not really the same though. Music in it's digital form has no inherent monetary value. It has no physical existence and can be endlessly replicated for nothing.

Using that argument you could say that analogue music has no physical existence either.

"Sound" is stored on a vinyl record in a very similar manner to a hard disc.

I know some people can identify a record from the grooves in the plastic, but I've not heard of someone holding it up to their ear to do it.

Music is transported across the internet in a similar way it is transported across an audio cable. Both are electrical signals, the only difference is speed.

Technically I think piracy is inevitable with digital audio though. The human ear is so rubbish, it's easy to create something small compressed and transportable that sounds fantastic. Incredible what they can do these days, software completely removing a lot of the high (and human audible) frequencies from the data and the player taking a punt at putting it back, and getting it spot on.

Not sure that's the case with video yet. The tv/movie companies have somewhat learned their lessons from the record companies though. Not easy or affordable to get the equipment to run off HD copies from an HD source at the moment as well as the files being huge.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It was the figure they gave, it could be that they were downloading an album for free, if they liked it then they went out to buy the album on CD from a shop / online, hence spending the money then.

Would you go out and buy an album by an artist if you had heard just 1 song? and if you did then found you disliked everything else on that album currently the industry doesn't really allow you to get a refund on that album so you have basically wasted your money. Surely thats a part of the music industry rip off that they need to change (although i guess they do not refund because they are worried that people will just buy to copy the album before returning and basically getting a copy for free). Other industries give you more scope to return items you are unhappy with without question.

Another con they use in the music industry is to release an album which people buy, but then they release a version 2 of that same album but with an extra couple of tracks meaning that you have to buy another copy of an almost identical album to get the extra material as you can't exchange your version 1 copy for the other version.

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.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

i use itunes for my music because i dont want the viruses that come with file sharing, but it is too expensive, if you could buy music for 10p a track then i really dont think there would be a debate to have.

If music producers and musicians had to share the proceeds of just 10p a track, I don't think there would be much new music to have a debate about.

 

[Skint Gull]

So why target the end user not the original uploader of these items? - they are surely causing far more damage to the industries. (especially those who put films on the net or albums out before they are officially released anywhere)

Without watching the program i don't want to comment too much but i suspect many of the uploaders are not in the UK and therefore cannot be charged by the UK companies/police.

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.

To be honest i'm one that will but actual CD's for as long as they are available. I have bought the odd track off of Amazon.mp3 but if i want an Album I will always buy the CD, especially all the time the downloads are only 10-20% cheaper.

I don't agree with Illegal downloading but with the cost of buying download albums so high, I am not surprised that it is such a problem. I think if the record companies want to do this they need both the carrot and the stick. The cost of a download album or film needs to come down below a fiver and then they can legitimately say there is absoluteley no excuse for illegal downloads and come down like a ton of bricks on those doing it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not sure that's the case with video yet. The tv/movie companies have somewhat learned their lessons from the record companies though. Not easy or affordable to get the equipment to run off HD copies from an HD source at the moment as well as the files being huge.

Maybe with HD its different, but only really due to the shear size of the data. getting a source? dont make me laugh, i know a guy who worked security at Fox and he was constantly be given review copies and pre-releases of movies and TV series. he didnt buy a DVD for a year. a slightly more dishonest employee would have been ripping and burning them all over the internet. and then the studios wonder where the piracy problem starts?

Price has a lot more to do with people choosing to download, people don't want to be ripped off and have to pay upto £20 or a DVD or £17 for a CD, especially when they know it will be on sale for a fraction of that cost a few months later. Or high prices for material that hasn't been in general circulation for ages either. Often some buy proper versions once the price drops to more reasonable levels.

yeah, why do people complain about £17 cds (really, where? most ive seen is 15 for a fairly rare on) and £20 DVDs when they know they can wait weeks for them to be £10/12. thats as much the retailers i think, i cant see they can afford to buy stock then discount that heavily, they are buying for a few quid i reckon (anyone know?). i've never really brought into the CDs are too expensive, firstly you dont have to buy and certinly dont have a god given right to music/films (some really do seem to think that, especally on US forums) and secondly as far as i can see the price have dropped in real terms over my life time.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

We generally wouldn't accept theft from a shop so why is theft of music ok ?

But is shoplifting seen as that bad?, do the authorities crack down on it like they seem to be doing with downloaders? or do repeat shop lifting offenders basically just get a slap on the wrist if caught and released to offend again?

I worked in retail in Western Road, Brighton. There was one shop nearby (C&A) who lost more money due to shop lifting than they made in profit in the course of a year.

But does the Government or society view this as seriously? - No they don't.
Their shoplifting has the effect of pushing up the prices of everything in the shops as they try to recover their losses through theft so its not a victimless crime and can affect jobs and lead to some companies stopping trading altogether.

However it seems to me that because the Government see the music and film industries as more influential and more important than retail, (or just flavour of the month) they are targeting downloaders.

It seems to be that the same 'crime' of theft is more or less ignored in one case and it seems unequal justice. Either its big fines and or prison for all similar offences (be it theft online or from a shop) or basically being ignored like shoplifting is. Cutting of someones internet seems a disproportional punishment, would they ban shop lifters from every shop as punishment if someone was caught nicking a few items over a year?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It's not really the same though. Music in it's digital form has no inherent monetary value. It has no physical existence and can be endlessly replicated for nothing.

I can be replicated for nothing (excusing electrical value and internet charges), but that doesn't make it worthless.

Without wanting to draw a comparison, people can be smuggled for a profit, but that shouldn't overrule the legalities of the matter.

Actually, ignore that. Just because something is available for free, does not mean you should be absolved of a crime. It does have a saleable value, but not as it is available for free. The same goes for nicking apples from someones orchard. I betyou couldn't put a value on a few apples or sell them yourself, but they belong to someone and you are cutting into their revenue/profits.

 

[Kukev31]

Using that argument you could say that analogue music has no physical existence either.

"Sound" is stored on a vinyl record in a very similar manner to a hard disc.

I know some people can identify a record from the grooves in the plastic, but I've not heard of someone holding it up to their ear to do it.

Music is transported across the internet in a similar way it is transported across an audio cable. Both are electrical signals, the only difference is speed.

So you are paying for the physical existence which holds the music.

 

[Kukev31]

I betyou couldn't put a value on a few apples or sell them yourself, but they belong to someone and you are cutting into their revenue/profits.

That's the point the apples belong to someone and by stealing them you are stopping the owner from having them. This isn't what happens with a digital music file.