Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

They used to moan when people recorded vinyl onto tape for distribution to friends or own use in the car etc. Nothing changes they just won't move with technology and reserve the right to rip off the consumer.

Is downloading any different to when we used to record direct from the radio. OK quality is better but so what, at the time we were happy with what we had.


OK I have downloaded a few albums. Mostly stuff I still have on what the kids call my big black cd collection in the loft, but no turntable to play them on these days. So just a backup to the license I already have to play that music for my own personal use.

However, I have also downloaded stuff that I would have had no intention to buy. Enjoyed it, or binned it. Downloading exposes new work to the masses. Radio that used to do that is now staid and repetitive. the record companies should help themselves by moving with the time. Put up their own streaming sites etc. Maybe develop the formats on so that you can get high quality music etc for free but unable to store/distribute. It would do their market research and band exposure one hell of a lot of good.

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

I would happily pay £10 a month for an unlimited download site. The ammount i actually download nowadays, that would be a fiar price. In the old days then no, i was buying 3-4 albums a week, + CDS as well.

It all comes down to setting a realistic charge foe DD's plain and simple.

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

+1

But...

1. It would have to be universal, none of the crap you get now where some labels sign up and some don't so the catalogue is limited
2. No DRM, Same as a CD, you buy it, you can put it on your mp3 player, in your car
3. Must be good bitrate, 320kbps is standard fair for illegal downloads, FLAC is common

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdSFe0UgB3E

:mrgreen:

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

See you want just too much. Id be happy with DRM free 192kpbs. My entire colelction is 192. Its good enough

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

I have a £20 pair of headphones and can easily tell the difference between 192 and 320bkps

It's not difficult to produce, if the music industry actually want consumers to use their services and pay for them they need to be as good as the competition...

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

im referring to drug runners and the like... its not like we have the time and space to clarify everypoint behind my opinion.. although if you have anough beer...

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

civil lawsuits etc being what they are do you not think this is going to force the ISP's to be more diligent about what their networks (whatever) are being used for?

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

So you'd compare file sharing with supplying drugs?:smt108

;)

Re: File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?
 

I stand to be corrected but everyone whoh equates it to stealing or theft is not correct? This is a copyright bootleg issue not theft and therefore different laws apply.

Another point I didnt make in my first post, but I see has been made since is the burden of proof seems to be on us as users not on the ISPS. This is not the correct way round in Law and is just lazy and scary on the part of the Government. Guilty until proved innoccent isnt our law system and mever should it be.

Put simply good music is pirated, great music is pirated a lot. They should concentrate on getting their price point and business model correct and transparent for those who want to buy music. In my opinon the majority of people will buy music, if they think the price is right and that their money goes in the right pockets.