Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
...will it work?
I spend a shit load on CDs and have broadband at home but don't use it to download music.
will my housemates who download music illegally on our broadband, which is in my name, get me into trouble??? I wouldn't mind by the quality of the music is a fucking joke. I found one of them downloading a Bush album FFS.
which discusses this exact point at the minute. I half read it, but I believe that it concluded that Wi-Fi theft would not result in the owner being prosecuted.
bush rock! you cunt.
with it, the news just mentioned some vauge stuff about it last night and didn't say very much.
The 'iPod Tax' doesn't seem to be really happening, and they haven't quite worked out what to do with people who ignore the letters... Remove their internet? Ban them from all ISPs?
What if everyone shared music in zip folders with passwords. How would they see what you are downloading?
This is the record industries Vietnam. We'll be hiding in the trees, loaded with mp3s and cracked software.
I can just picture the head of EMI shaking and saying "they came out of the trees man...they came out of the freaking trees"
I love the smell of encryption software in the morning :-)
home-taping can now save music! The irony.
Was tried on blank cassettes - a portion of the price was going to go to the music industry, as penance for the undoubted nefarious uses they would be put to. Anyone know if it was ever started, and what we can learn from it?
The independent is saying they're going to charge £30? How ridiculous
Surely with the broadband price wars the ISPs won't agree to it
For £30, you can download all the music in the world you want without breaking the law. If you wanted to do that, that would be a pretty fair system.
I'd subscribe to that, although heaven knowns why record companies would agree.
such as Belgium, Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden this is the case, and not only for audio and video tapes, but CDRs and Minidiscs as well.
since I mostly use CD-Rs for the distribution of my own music.
The ISP's can't penalise you for doing something illegal until they've proved it in court. All it will take is someone who downloads lots of 100% legal music to get the letters and cut off and they'll be a shit storm.
You agree to TOS when you sign up - break those and it's up to them what they do with you.
ISP's are being forwarded the IP's of people who share or download copyrighted music, not legal music.
i download albums and buy what i want personally from bands at shows. seems fair.
i dont want to give my money to Zavvi or wherever.
and i dont feel guilty at all downloading music when the artist are more business than 'art'.
i don't think there's an argument for illegal downloading any more.
cd prices have dropped considerably (i saw the foals album for £6.95 the other day and it wasn't in a sale of a bargain bin. Whilst this isn't always the case cds are definately cheaper than a few years ago.
also bands often put up their album to listen to for free before it's released on sites like myspace - if you want to try before you buy you can do it that way.
i'm not having criticising people that illegally download - i just don't think there's an argument for it anymore.
is totally not thought out properly, but if a band put paypal details on their myspace or something, people who downloaded their stuff and liked it and felt a bit guilty about the band not getting their cut, but had no intention of spending £10 on the album could stick a couple of quid into the paypal account, to ease their conscience. People are never going to feel guilty about EMI not getting their cut...
How much actual cash per itunes album download do bands end up with anyway?
I'd say there's alway an argument for it; maybe less of one than previously, but it's still pretty big. (I'm talking less about the moral aspect of it here, than the ..perceived practicality, I guess) Simply that downloading is still the path of least resistance; typing a word into a search engine vs. bargain hunting in shops, waiting for delivery from Amazon, etc..
Online delivery is a dual-edged sword: much easier (although still with hassles of it's own), but eliminates the 'perceived value' of what you're buying. I do think it's the way forward though. In practical terms, I think that if the record companies want to turn this situation around they need to devise a system that's cheap enough to compete with the price of p2p (i.e. nothing, or next to nothing), and that is -more- convenient than illegal downloading.
Does this represent 'devalued' music? Almost certainly; but the horse has already bolted, here. It would probably lead to a situation where more people pay for more music, but pay less for it. And that'd be a pretty big shift from the current norm for the recording industry..
mass online delivery means that the audio quality has to suffer because you can't sustain high levels of bandwith use.
radiohead's in rainbows was a great album in the physical format but as an audio download it suffered.
also that album prooved that even with readily available 'free' downloads, people still prefer owning the physical editions.
as for the industry accepting that people want to pay less for music - labels have to PAY to have their albums in the supermarkets at slashed prices. I think everyone is pretty ready to accept that people pay less for music nowadays - especially as we only get about 48p per track return from itunes!!
Youtube, a bit of research throws up, has a bitrate of 150-350kbs. 65kbps of which is audio. In Rainbows was 128kbps (please someone tell me if I'm getting my units mixed up here), so a switch to higher definition bitrate (320kbps is much more acceptable and is still less than a youtube stream) isn't going to bring the web grinding to a halt. Hell, we could even switch to a lossless format like FLAC for the real audiophiles and that wouldn't be unmanageable (as progressive technologies like bittorrent have shown..).
Sure, there'll always be people who want the physical products, but I see that becoming the 'premium' market in the future. In Raindows had some confounding factors: the ridiculously low bitrate, the offputting 'how much do you want to pay' thing, the fact that Radiohead fans will pay money for anything with the name Radiohead written on or near it. I think the only thing that really demonstrated was that people still want an acceptable base product even if you pay 1p for it.
You say that the labels (etc) are ready to accept that people want to pay less for music. First, I'd always heard that the artist return rate from CDs was much lower than that iTunes figure (especially if you split by track?)? But what I really mean is that there's a difference between accepting the lower perceived value of music and working with that problem, and fighting against it by making your customers into criminals.
i accept your point about perceptions of the worth of music - but as these threads have continuously shown - people have always shared and copied music. i'm not sure that downloading music for free (or otherwise) necessarily devalues it.
most of the majors are actually moving towards premium physical packages - look at universal's move to deluxe editions for example. CD sales are extremely strong at the moment - check out last week's charts for example - 50k units of the Mamma Mia soundtrack, when all those songs, and the Abba originals, have been available for ever on itunes or on p2p networks..
and as for the bandwidth - it might not be unmanageable but it is sure as hell expensive!! if you have 50k people downloading 128kbps over the space of one week, that's some mega webage.
also the bandwidth thing is increasingly becoming an issue - especially as service providers are more and more moving out of the UK. I was listening to a very interesting programme on Radio4 about the growing lack of energy source providers in London and the effect it was having on businesses hoping to set up in london..
also the payback on itunes or physical is roughly the same.
labels rely on itunes to tell them the truth about how many people have downloaded which track - whereas distribution is very easy to track.
music would come out without "Zavvi or wherever"?
are you suggesting that without an industry, nobody would ever record popular music?
but it would be much much more expensive to record, package and distribute music though
or for there to be any sense of a global music community
last night i downloaded the little wings album. i am seriously meant to believe that some of this supposed £30 a year would make it's way back to K records?
Anyway. Surely they can't trace people that download using mediafire / megaupload? i can maybe understand them tracing file sharing things like limewire..., but blogs and stuff - that can't be hit, can it?
Are you not allowed a back up file or something? Or is that only if you actually own a hard copy?
i dont ever use p2p programmes but i do use filefactory/rapidshare etc.. so that means they would have to prove exactly what you are downloading AND subsequently prove the ilegality of that download.. hmm
they can...'cause you are still down loading a file and they can intercept it..go to the link or whatever...see that you downloaded it and BAM!
to use the file as a back up?
you have a file? surely they would have to first FIND the link, and then work out a way to trace who downloaded the file? Who are they going to employ to trawl 90's emo and indie blogs? Even then, there's a whole load on uncertainty!
"MUSIC IS TOO EXPENSIVE!!!!!!"
for him to rip? nothing. ok so i can understand sharing leaks is pretty out of order, but honestly where do you draw the line?? psh
That's the film industry's idea of combating downloads, trying to perpetuate some kind of ridiculous name calling culture... anyone else driven nuts by this? It's so misdirected and pathetic!
Especially seeing as the new advert features a cheap knock off Ron Burgundy. Hypocrisy!
and i truly terrible song
i wonder how many people in the advert have pirate music/films
so it's no skin off my back really.
but i don't really understand how 'workable' this is, and the idea of ISPs keeping tabs on what sites you're viewing, what programmes you're running, and what files you're downloading and uploading seems a bit invasive.
are already required to do this by law (except the programmes you're running bit).
We live in a wonderfully intrusive country.
all they do is fuck people over anyway
will people who only use the internet to upload their own music and only download things from friends that they wrote have to pay a "licence fee"?
I can't help feeling that a lot of this is payback for the days when the likes of HMV
were charging 16.99 for non-chart albums.
If any good comes out of this it may be that the majors exercise a little more quality control, I just hope that the indies don't take too much of a hit in the meantime.
they didn't stick with vinyl.
who pays that amount for a CD is a mug and deserves to be ripped off. there are a million ways to get them cheaper and if you're too lazy to investigate them then that's your own fault.
downloading has done wonders for the industry. dizzee has had a number one single for four/five weeks almost purely legal downloads.
people always forget that people were taping and distributing music illegally long before downloading.
One- once it is on the internet you can download it anywhere in the world. therefore it has to be an agreed charge around the world. Try telling people in teh US they will get charges $60 dollars a month surcharge....not going to happen.
Canada does it (about C$2.50 per month) but labels arent really pursuing it.
Two- loads of people will just refuse to pay. At that amount of money I can't see ISP's enforcing it. I download a lot- but only because it is review copies of things that have been sent to me (and therefore legal). However, the fact is the amount i download is large.
Three- The money will not be split evenly- because they will not monitor what artists are downloaded- they are proposing just to split it to the labels in a proportion to existing sales- which means small and independent labels won't get much, and certainly not 'whats due' to them. I would imagine labels will have to pay a fee to register themselves also- which almost certainly wont be worth it.
As a label, I know for a fact that everything we have released is available to download off a variety of sites (particularly spanish ones for some reason). We can't afford to pursue it, so we just have to hope people will come to live shows...and buy merch.
Fact is, once again, this is a solution for the music (BIG)BUSINESS. The smaller labels won't see any benefit whatsoever
to download stuff if you've been sent review copies?
digitally. Therefore i have a high level of download traffic. Where it is watermarked to the person who runs the website i am not that person, although I am reviewing it- therefore it could be seen that it is illegal. What tends to happen is for speed (and financial)reasons a digital copy is sent rather than the actual hard copy and every so often i get a bunch of 'hard copy' cds in a bundle.
Do you see? Or have I explained that badly
i don't download any stuff illegally.
Digital copies for review, then a bundle of hard copies at a later date. Though i doubt it looks illegal from my point of view, everything me and the other writers need is uploaded to an FTP, so it's all good I think.
does anyone know anyone that can set up digital watermarks?
i understand what you mean. i thought you were saying that you downloaded stuff you got sent on CD, which is why i was puzzled :)
the record labels need to man up and think of ways to get people to legally download music, not just try and stop people from downloading full stop.
ISPs won't threaten customers with a stoppage of their account, they'd all lose far too much business in a very tough market.
millions of people download music legally!!!!
was the quote back in the day. However I am sure I'm not alone in having taped an album off a mate I then proceeded to buy a vinyl copy and subsequently bought later albums aswell - sales that would never have been made had i not been introduced to the act "illegally".
It's no different now - if something is downloaded from a file sharing site then a lot of people assuming they like it will go on to purchase the CD. The focus has shifted so that the customer and not the industry holds the upper hand
Lets not forget the price of CD's before they became generally available online . HMV and co had no problem ripping off punters for years by charging between £12 and £15 for releases which proves the contempt they have for music lovers. These large companies have never cared about what the consumer wants only how they can increase their profit margins and in my opinion this will never change.
...Kings of Leon album as I know somebody has that?
pay for recording and stuff?
bands have to buy the cds they sell at gigs from the label/distributor.
it's just not true - money from cd sales is decided on a case by case legal or points basis..
session musicians, engineers, studio cleaners and caterers, record shopworkers out of a job only one thing can save us... Nationalisation! Icreased funding for the New Deal for Musicians
..how many ISPs do you have in the UK nowadays? If those letters start arriving, then you simple switch ISPs, it will be amazing how this idea will get scrapped when the customer base starts going elsewhere.
I haven't lived in the UK for an age, but I do recall having bandwidth limitations - perhaps you still have them? and a fair users policy... what happened then with heavy downloaders, is that they just switch ISPs to one with less restrictions.
I think it is more a scare tactic than anything else, to put it into practice would result in them shooting themselves in the foot.
Please tell me how??
been onto virgin for days, hard enough getting basic help from the cunts
situation. It's bloody horrendous. The only advice I can give is to hammer away at them to give you your MAC code (that's all you need to give your new ISP) and cancel your direct debit if you have one.
6 month contract unfortunately...or is it 12???
My advice is null and void then. NULL and VOID! You could try and force their hand on a violation of contract thing; go through it with a fine-toother comb and see what they're not fulfilling in your opinion. This can work surprisingly well with a follow up letter or two; I got Pipex to cancel a 12 month contract in this way..
a fine-toothed comb.
i am durrrr