Music body may act on illegal downloading (1 Viewer)

[guy of the tiger]

"Your mine (insert surname here)"
while grinning and slowly making a clenching fist in front of my face

Oh, c'mon fancy, I can tell from your avatar that you're a big record company mogul just waiting to get your claws into our hard-earned pocket money.

Funny, just as I was writing that, a Fianna Fail lad came to my door to give me a leaflet. He looked a little bit Fancy, he did...

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

i'm in favour of a ban on music all together

andrew

 

[guy of the tiger]

but 'what is music' spangarty?

i'm in favour of a ban on music all together

andrew

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

hahh total mindwarp

you still in work? the m50 rules
peazeout

 

[jane]

"Your mine (insert surname here)"
while grinning and slowly making a clenching fist in front of my face

And anyway, Fancy, my Spy-Ware-senses tell me you're going to use all of your record company millions to buy a yacht full of illegal bikinis.

 

[Thomas Brunkard]

Night of the weird surnames

(Since this the first and possibly last time I'll get to post anything like this!) .|..|


This is me on Prime Time last Thursday discussing with Dave Pennefather (MD Universal Ireland and President of IRMA).
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0415/primetime.html (you'll need real player)


Interesting answers from Mr. Pennefather regarding the suing of 12 year olds.
I also found out that the Canadians just made it illegal for ISP's to pass on ISP addys to Record Companies chasing downloaders. How aboot that.

 

[kraster]

I can't fucking believe what I'm reading here! Are you all serious? Irregardless of all the dickhead record company suits illegal downloading is theft whatever way you look at it. I know that record companies charge extortionate amounts of money for CD's etc. etc. but that doesn't mean you should go out and steal it instead. If the bands/artists want to release stuff for nothing that's fine but if people are relying on music for a livelihood then it's just plain wrong. I'm not talking Justin Timberlake or Mariah Carey I'm talking about everyone.

 

[pete]

 

[broken arm]

Re: Night of the weird surnames

This is me on Prime Time last Thursday discussing with Dave Pennefather (MD Universal Ireland and President of IRMA). http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0415/primetime.html

Didn't you look very neat - (and sound very reasonable)

now here is a good idea - high quality, unencoded and cheap.

http://www.warprecords.com/bleep

 

[pete]

I can't fucking believe what I'm reading here! Are you all serious? Irregardless of all the dickhead record company suits illegal downloading is theft whatever way you look at it. I know that record companies charge extortionate amounts of money for CD's etc. etc. but that doesn't mean you should go out and steal it instead. If the bands/artists want to release stuff for nothing that's fine but if people are relying on music for a livelihood then it's just plain wrong. I'm not talking Justin Timberlake or Mariah Carey I'm talking about everyone.

It's not theft. The owner is not being deprived of any property.

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm

 

[kraster]

It's not theft. The owner is not being deprived of any property.

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm

Ok point taken, Pete, the correct term is not theft but copyright infringement and is still illegal. Ultimately it's the musician that gets shafted. As I've said before the record companies have been for years charging extortianate prices for their 'products'. The owner is not permanently deprived of any property but they are being deprived of revenue that would have been generated. Music doesn't cost nothing to produce and many people rely on this revenue to live. You're not doing them any favours.

 

[Alan Remorse]

i look at it like this... i listen to very very few bands that actually would be making much money from what they do... and the thing is for most bands filesharing can do them a lot of good, can get people into their stuff and so on. Half of the bands i now listen to religiously i never would have even heard of if it wasnt for Napster, Kazaa etc

 

[Willie Willions]

"but that doesn't mean you should go out and steal it instead."

Yes it does

 

[pete]

they are being deprived of revenue that would have been generated.

Maybe on paper they are, but this is assuming that the downloader would have bought the CD's instead of downloading the mp3's. That's a pretty big assumption, particularly in the case of teenagers with a few gigabytes of files.

Music doesn't cost nothing to produce and many people rely on this revenue to live. You're not doing them any favours.

If an individual downloads 1,000 mp3's for free that they would never have bought on CD in the first place, where's the loss to the artist? The artist is not suffering any harm when an individual listens to an MP3 - no more so than if their music is heard through any other means not originating with the individual's purchase of a CD.

Using language like "stealing" and "theft" when discussing filesharing is totally misleading, and making a case against it on the basis of notional lost revenues is ridiculous.

 

[Anthony]

They;re just worried that it'll put and end to people actually buying CDs in order to see if they like a band (buying based on hype, if you will). See, now you're shelves won't be full of crap you never listen to!

 

[kraster]

Using language like "stealing" and "theft" when discussing filesharing is totally misleading, and making a case against it on the basis of notional lost revenues is ridiculous.

Ok point taken, Pete, the correct term is not theft but copyright infringement and is still illegal.

I'm not arguing against filesharing as a mode of delivery of music. It's the free-for-all aspect that's worrying. People are now accustomed to getting music for free. Most artists release there work with the assumption that they will generate revenue from the sale of their recordings. But if the common assumption now being put forward that music costs nothing surely that's going to affect the potential income of the artist. It just needs to be regulated so it's fair on all sides. To the listener and the artist.

 

[egg_]

Record industry mooks don't care about right and wrong, they care about staying in business. They're driven by fear

 

[Latex lizzie]

..and availability of hair care products.

 

[Ed]

Record industry mooks don't care about right and wrong, they care about staying in business. They're driven by fear

Agreed, Record companies are run by old people, who, to put it bluntly, are terrified by the internet and can't see the potential of it. I think the major record shops have a lot to answer for in this case aswell as the record labels, as it's them who are going to lose the most money in the long run. If the record companies actually utilized the internet and used it as a way to cut out the middleman(by providing top quality online editions of the albums which can be downloaded and burned for a fiver or something instead of having us ripped off by made-up CD production costs and retailers mark-ups. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen any time soon, despite any losses they're reporting due to piracy they're still making enough out of screwing us over that they won't change. As regards whether downloading music is theft, to be honest i believe it is, people can try to justify it to themselves however they want, but in the end it's still theft.

I could waffle on longer, but i'm trying to finish an essay.

 

[Latex lizzie]

Agreed, Record companies are run by old people, who, to put it bluntly, are terrified by the internet and can't see the potential of it.

this is a bit of a silly statement to make edwardo.I'm sure the "old guys" pay people to keep their finger on the pulse? sure aren't sony (a major record label in their own right) making lots of product for mp3's and downloads and such?sayin.