Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
this really riles me. i cant really explain why. maybe my anger is overpowering me
i download nothing, and buy fuckloads of cds. but the idea that people can watch what you do with your internet and then prosecute you..... but for music and not say, kiddy porn...
nobody ever gets busted for kiddie porn.
You could always just say you were downloading music for ahem, "research"
it isn't your internet, it's a service they are providing you with. if you misuse that service, they're well within their rights to cut you off.
and why not, eh? if you can tell that people are illegally downloading stuff, then why couldnt you tell if they were downloading illegal content?
The main point is, maybe, is it alright for our internet providers to watch how we use their services?
i think this is just a lot of fluster, and i doubt anything will come of it.
considering it's a service they provide, if you're using their conduits to conduct illegal activities and they don't do anything about it, it pretty much makes them also culpable.
also: kiddie porn is a criminal matter, whilst copywrite infringement is, i think, a civil matter in most cases. and i would imagine ISPs already co-operate with police to a high degree over criminal issues, it just isn't talked about as much.
but I thought this kind of thing happened anyway although I suppose in a less formalised way. I know people who have got letters from film companies telling them to stop downloading their films.
The ISP's who provide your service are not willing to be bullied by the Music Industry or the UK goverment and frankly are too rich to allow this to happen.
Its a lot of sabre rattling to appease the likes of Universal and EMI but in truth these are civil matters and the ISP's are not, and never will be bound by the law to act on them.
You can almost imagine the meetings that produce these kinds of claims. The regulations officials all telling the ISPs to monitor their traffic ("how about a three strikes and you're out system, that sounds good, doesn't it?"), the ISPs themselves replying with how unworkable it is.
Stuff like this doesn't get the response I expect on here (I feel like there's an odd eagerness to waive away any rights-to-privacies in this new, er, digital frontier, all that shiznit), but then again perhaps I'm a bit overly militant about this stuff. To me, if feels like shutting the stable door long, long after the horse has bolted. And then finding the horse and giving it a horrible chinese burn.
"I feel like there's an odd eagerness to waive away any rights-to-privacies in this new, er, digital frontier, all that shiznit"
conversely, there are also a buttload of ridiculous "i hate the RIAA and major labels suck" attitudes on here, which are pretty much as stupid.
Don't get me wrong, that's irritating too (although they deserve no small amount of criticism).
largely an argument between vested business interests. On the one hand the music industry is potentially losing billions to illeagal downloading, on the other ISPs don't want the costs involved of implementing this or to lose customers.
I would imagine nothing will come of this, if only because of the difficulty in identifying poeple who've downloaded illegally, rather than just accessing shared files - the government is still very keen to get as many people online as possible.
As for monitoring our internet usage, that's been going on for 10 years anyway - ISPs are bound by law to keep a record of your usage for at least 2 years, with many choosing to keep records indefinitely for just this purpose.
wot manages U2 recently accused the internet provider of essentially stealing bands and record companies revenue - in a tone that suggested that was all they earnt from
As long as major labels and established music mogols have this attitude of "potentially" losing this revenue to ISP's rather than a collaborative approach then they will sink down further and further.
a lot of ISP advertising does seem designed to tap into "HEY, LOOK HOW FAST YOU DOWNLOAD MUSIC AND MOVIES AND TV SHOWS FROM THE INTERNET!" with scant mentuon as to the legality of doing this.
...referring to the massive amount of content that is legally available.
i'm sure they are.
DOWN WITH THE RIAAAaaa
...we just say "da goverment, innit?"
things can be encrypted too.
One of the reasons why ISP's dont want to do this is that filtering and checking every users downloads all the time would slow things down to a snails pace.
never heard that opinion before. Why is downloading older stuff more acceptable?
argument for downloading popular albums then, rather than old ones? There are ways to here new music without downloading it (last fm, myspace) but harded with old music.... oh what am i arguing for? It feels less bad downloading the rolling stones back catalogue than say, a less well selling band(my mind has gone blank). But while it may do less harm to download older albums, it is still bad - most sales are made up of music outside the top 40, and if we dont create a demand for it then shops will stop selling it.
how you've just disproved your own point?
in terms of encouraging new artists, but it hardly seems fair on any other grounds. What if it's an older artist who didn't find success from their original sales? Or, as gamecat says, doesn't that give you free reign to download anything of an artist who doesn't 'need' it? Can you extend that to whether the artist 'deserves' the money or not?
I'm not trying to pick at you here, I don't think there are any easy answers to this stuff.
about the Oink community; old stuff (very, very obscure stuff) was generally well seeded. Basically, if it was good it was seeded well, regardless of age. New releases were the best seeded things, but you could get that anywhere; the old stuff was really the backbone of it.
So downloading a new album is bad, but give it a year or two and it's ok? Who wins in that scenario?
keep on fightin' the power!
Iggy only received his first royalty cheque for the Stooges stuff on Electra in 1982. It was so small an amount he didn't cash it and kept for posterity.
I can see Codswallop's lne of reasoning here, but the ethics of illegal downloading based on the age of the track doesn't really stack up (though I don't think the logic behind it was really supposed to stand up to scrutiny).
Maybe we can just download bands we don't like - you know, just to teach them a lesson.
That'd really fuck 'em off.
I don't agree with it, and how old the album is has little to do with the legality of downloading.
Besides, most physical retailers make their money from back catalouge. The mark up on current chart releases is tiny, which is why older stuff is usually more expensive; individual records don't sell quite as well so the overheads for them work out as more than a recent release, but back catalouge as a whole makes alot of money.
So if you follow the success of retail to the success of labels and then bands, your tehory doesn't work
the one you said you could get for £4 up there?
if you have internet access, there's really fuck all reason you should pay more than about £7/8 for ANY album.
that the products you want are available at a price you would be willing to pay, but you're still going to steal them anyway?
good one, craig.
I can see where you are coming from, but paying the admittedly large price for back catalouge keeps retailers alive, which sveral steps down the line allows for new bands to be given a chance
"I dont have a problem with downloading older albums, or Artist back catalogues though."
If that's obvious it's also wrong. In the few cases where an artist/label has made a great deal of money I see what you're trying to say but how do you decide an album has been successful enough that it's ok for it to be free?
That's assuming that you believe that because an artist or label has made money out a record in the past they don't deserve to make any more. I think that's rubbish.
From a moral perspective I get your point but you can't have it both ways. Those artists would be well within their rights to be annoyed at people downloading their music - it's not their fault they've had such great success. And of course legally it would be a non-starter to discriminate.
It is annoying that if I wanted to go to HMV to buy, say, Scary Monsters it would probably cost £14 with a bunch of crap b-sides tagged on at the end so I can see why downloading it is tempting. I would have thought the labels could make a killing by doing some affordable reiusses of artists like those, but I'm no buisinessman.
that people who are downloading illegally are also the main people who actually legitimately buy stuff?
And while 'try before you buy' is dubious, if someone downloads an album that they wouldn't bother to buy in a shop, I can't quite see how the record label loses - they wouldn't have made the sale anyway.
it would likely tick off a number of aspiring music journos/bloggers, who quite frankly wouldn't be able to afford to buy all of the music they review. what if such a person had to pay for every single gig they went to that they intended to review? i think there are technicalities with this case, as people have mentioned, that would take ages to fathom out and the whole situation would probably get too tangled up within itself. it does seem like a bit of arm-flailing fuss and nothing much else (i hope, anyway..)
probably the lamest yet most overused arguement when this subject comes up.
I don't think the "they wouldn't have made the sale anyway" argument is valid as used above, there's a grain of truth in there.
In that people do take a scattershot approach when downloading. If it's by an artist the person is already familiar with (trusts, if you like), then yes; a download probably represents a lost sale. The scattershot approach, however, is great for discovering new stuff; people don't often make 'chance' purchases outside of the artists or genres that they know they enjoy.
I don't think streaming solutions work for this, either. You don't sit down at a computer with headphones to enjoy some new music; you want to be on a train with your headphones on, or something.
but I'm still intrigued.
It isn't any different from listening to something on the radio, surely.
as i said up above, you can hear music without downloading. radion, myspace, last fm, music blogs. once you have downloaded it you are going to be less worried about buying something - you can just get something else instead...
So far this year I've bought around 25-30 albums. All but two of these are ones that I had downloaded already and liked.
I'm not gonna touch the "older vs newer" argument, but I don't think you should assume that *nobody* goes onto buy downloaded records just because you don't.
"Do you download illegally or do you think it's right that illegal downloaders should be disconnected? Send us your comments by filling out the form below"
"If the Government succeed in introducing this, we may say goodbye to Piracy but more importantly goodbye to Privacy ... You'll think twice about what you input into a search engine forever ..."
pretty much spot on.
this is a new issue is a fool. The US and UK have been routinely monitoring airbourne communications for almost 40 years under the Echelon project, which now includes internet communications. They use keyword filtering, and can intercept 90% of internet and satellite traffic.
Internet usage has never been private.
this is different. In this case, the information is being used for completely overt purposes. This would be ISPs telling their customers that there are very strict limitations on what they do, rather than prospective monitoring of general internet traffic for security purposes.
How dare they try and bring in initiatives to stop us stealing what's rightfully theirs! Wankers!!! *shakes fist irately*