Thumped.com on the News, WTF?! (1 Viewer)

[Bold Lump]

Aren't the users the hosts of the actual files? Isn't that what peer-to-peer means? If they are, and the ISPs want to do it and co-operate with each other, then they probably CAN stop filesharing

In this incarnation perhaps, but people will use technology to find another way as soon as they have to. There's no way to find out the figures but i bet that Britney's latest album was pirated far more off isolated hosting sites than it was P2P.

Sure you can fit thousands upon thousands of albums in an envelope. In this day and age how do you stop the wholesale transfer of data?

Anthony users of those sites are generally the most conscientous of downloaders and many spend an awful lot on music. There are some though that have never had access to a well stocked independant store, so the music as physical artifact was never an attraction, mostly people in their teens or early twenties.

and besides the little boys don't have the money for the marketting or the distribution. if the sites weren't there they wouldn't have a fraction of the people listening to their music. How many would choose to be completely unheard of and broke, over being heard and still being broke.

 

[Cryptid]

Also, it's important, when you do hear something that's amazing, to follow it up and try to buy it on cd or one's preferred format. Downloading is, as someone else on thumped said recently, a great way of avoiding crap purchases. I've bought a lot of albums based on good singles and glowing reviews that I ended up not liking at all.

 

[ratmonkey]

Would slavery be a better analogy, if you're getting the benefit of someone's work and they're not being paid?

 

[Cryptid]

Would slavery be a better analogy, if you're getting the benefit of someone's work and they're not being paid?

If you're getting the benefit of it, i.e. enjoying it, you should then follow it up with a purchase, no doubt about that. If it's something that's hyped up and isn't that good, then no.

If illegal downloading is slavery, then loads of aspects of life are slavery. Maybe they are too.

 

[egg_]

There's no way to find out the figures but i bet that Britney's latest album was pirated far more off isolated hosting sites than it was P2P.

Sure you can fit thousands upon thousands of albums in an envelope. In this day and age how do you stop the wholesale transfer of data?

I doubt you'd make any money on that bet. If the labels are targeting p2p, then that's probably the main source of illegal downloads, dontcha think? The decentralisation of P2P is what made it hard to police up to now - if the ISPs co-operate in closing it down it's really going to be much much more difficult to illegally download stuff on anything like the scale we have now

 

[snakybus]

how much downloading traffic is P2P actually responsible for, though, in percentage terms? I'd imagine that they're going after P2P, because that's what they can go after -- i.e., individuals sharing files. The Rapidshares and Mediafires are next to impossible to police efficiently. You can only do it on an an individual basis (like go and look for Morrissey's new album on Rapidshare, for example, and demand that it be removed), which is what websherrif does, yeah?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

I doubt you'd make any money on that bet. If the labels are targeting p2p, then that's probably the main source of illegal downloads, dontcha think? The decentralisation of P2P is what made it hard to police up to now - if the ISPs co-operate in closing it down it's really going to be much much more difficult to illegally download stuff on anything like the scale we have now

I think in the long term the ISPs will realise it is not in their best interest in acting as policeman for the record industry.

It sounds OK now, but in an increasingly broadband and on-demand world, the ISPs will see that what their customers expect is to be able to listen to what they want, when they want. Anything that gets in the way of that (such as keeping the record industry on a ventilator by ratting teenagers to the law) will eventually been seen as contrary to servicing their interest.

Another thing that strikes me as that we see this as a question of ownership; when we download something illegally we do so to own it. Yet no one really has any problem with going onto you-tube and looking at videos of the same song, do they?

What's the difference? Is there any?

Is it somehow different because the file is on your machine and not out in the cloud. As we become more used to having all types of media on demand the physical location of the file becomes a bit meaningless.

Did the guy with a 1TB drive of songs download them to "own" them or does that drive serve as something like you-tube or internet radio - a big collection of the type of stuff he likes?

 

[Cryptid]

how much downloading traffic is P2P actually responsible for, though, in percentage terms? I'd imagine that they're going after P2P, because that's what they can go after -- i.e., individuals sharing files. The Rapidshares and Mediafires are next to impossible to police efficiently. You can only do it on an an individual basis (like go and look for Morrissey's new album on Rapidshare, for example, and demand that it be removed), which is what websherrif does, yeah?

There's about 8 thousand album bloggers on the internet. Each album they post might get 50 to 500 downloads. So if new animal collective album gets posted on 500 blogs (my guess), that's 50,000 downloads, assuming 100 downloads per blog, worth between half and one million Euros. How many of those downloads were never going to be sales anyway is anyone's guess. How many sales the band got through these downloads is also anyone's guess. Ironically, the music is reaching a wider audience with the music producers, including record company etc, having declining revenue. Regarding your question though, I don't have a clue how much p2p downloads go on.

The websheriff usually pressurises the blogger to remove the offending item and/or the hosting site, I think. But I think they do it largely on a per item basis.

 

[egg_]

how much downloading traffic is P2P actually responsible for, though, in percentage terms? I'd imagine that they're going after P2P, because that's what they can go after -- i.e., individuals sharing files. The Rapidshares and Mediafires are next to impossible to police efficiently. You can only do it on an an individual basis (like go and look for Morrissey's new album on Rapidshare, for example, and demand that it be removed)

What's impossible about that? If you can identify content accurately (and software vendors claim they can) then it's very easy indeed to setup an automated process to type in "artist name album name rapidshare" to google, download whatever's on offer, check what it is, and then notify rapidshare that it's copyrighted content.

 

[egg_]

I think in the long term the ISPs will realise it is not in their best interest in acting as policeman for the record industry.

There's also the film industry, and eventually the publishing industry, to consider. Is the law on their side? I suspect it is, plus the combined might of those industries is probably greater than any individual ISP

I remember hearing something once about a p2p network on which the files were stored in the cloud rather then on individual machines - if that actually exists and is workable then that's the way filesharing will go. If not it might not have a future at all

 

[Mormon Nailer]

There's also the film industry, and eventually the publishing industry, to consider. Is the law on their side? I suspect it is, plus the combined might of those industries is probably greater than any individual ISP

I remember hearing something once about a p2p network on which the files were stored in the cloud rather then on individual machines - if that actually exists and is workable then that's the way filesharing will go. If not it might not have a future at all

Film industry seems to be a little more considered in their approach. The price of DVD has come down a lot compared to CD's that just go up. Film also has the advantage that the cinema experience cant be downloaded.

Publishing have made an agreement recently with Google on licensing for the Google Books project.

 

[egg_]

Film industry seems to be a little more considered in their approach. The price of DVD has come down a lot compared to CD's that just go up. Film also has the advantage that the cinema experience cant be downloaded.

Publishing have made an agreement recently with Google on licensing for the Google Books project.

If the record industry demonstrates that it is possible to cost-effectively prevent illegal downloading, then film and publishing will follow suit, dontcha think?

 

[robitusson]

Twat.

 

[hugh]

Another thing that strikes me as that we see this as a question of ownership; when we download something illegally we do so to own it. Yet no one really has any problem with going onto you-tube and looking at videos of the same song, do they?

What's the difference? Is there any?

I think there is a difference there. Videos have always been used as advertisements for the physical audio product (CD or single or whatever). So the more places a video is broadcast the better. No-one really buys music videos so looking at videos on YouTube is good from the record company's point of view as it advertises their product.

I suppose that might change though if the sales of the physical product decline so much they might be better off trying to get people to pay to watch the video ...

 

[Cryptid]

I think there is a difference there. Videos have always been used as advertisements for the physical audio product (CD or single or whatever). So the more places a video is broadcast the better. No-one really buys music videos so looking at videos on YouTube is good from the record company's point of view as it advertises their product.

I suppose that might change though if the sales of the physical product decline so much they might be better off trying to get people to pay to watch the video ...

I think that there's absolutely no difference between watching/listening to something on youtube on your pc (or downloading it from youtube) and illegally downloading a mp3. In both cases the music producers gets nothing. If you watch a music video on the tv, the tv station must pay royalties to the music producers.

But let's be reasonable, youtube, myspace etc are good things. N'est pas? Both the musicians and the fans benefit. Right? Much of the content infringes copyright though. And to some people copyright infringement equates to stealing. So which is it? It can't be both.

I'm inclined to think that youtube, myspace etc are really good things for both the musicians and the fans and copyright considerations should be not be persued by the record companies. I think the same about album downloads from blogs etc. If an artist is good, they will get more exposure, if they're bad, people are more wise to them and don't waste their money on bad music, especially where it's hyped to the hilt. When it comes down to it, fans will support musicians they like. I've spent a lot of money in this manner myself, and it was well spent. I hate looking at all the hundreds of cds I've bought and don't really like though.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

my philosophy

I buy all the records I can afford.

Then I see records I can't afford.

I buy them anyway.

 

[Cryptid]

I admire your dedication. I have a monthly budget. Yes, I am a nerd.

I listened to your compilation again. I was thinking it reminds me a bit of the first two St. Etienne albums, especially the hell house stuff. "Maybe that's what the beast is.. a ghost."

 

[hugh]

But let's be reasonable, youtube, myspace etc are good things. N'est pas? Both the musicians and the fans benefit. Right?

Of course the fans benefit because they are getting it for free. The musicians only benefit if the added exposure leads to the fans buying or doing something that they do get revenue from.

When it comes down to it, fans will support musicians they like.

I'd like to think so yeah. And a great way of supporting them would be by buying their stuff, instead of inventing endless self-justifications as to why it's okay to download it for free instead. Right?

 

[nlgbbbblth]

I admire your dedication. I have a monthly budget. Yes, I am a nerd.

I listened to your compilation again. I was thinking it reminds me a bit of the first two St. Etienne albums, especially the hell house stuff. "Maybe that's what the beast is.. a ghost."

I wish they'd release the Legend of Hell House soundtrack properly.

If I stuck to a budget I'd have no debts...

 

[Cryptid]

And a great way of supporting them would be by buying their stuff, instead of inventing endless self-justifications as to why it's okay to download it for free instead. Right?

Dude, I do buy music from musicians i like and go to their gigs as much as I can afford to. I'm not inventing endless self-justifications. I'm not here to make enemies either, so I'll leave it at that.