File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?

[timwilky]

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.

[Viney]

Originally Posted by Baph

Will consumers use the project? Why not? It also works for free (subject to the bandwidth costs). You don't HAVE to pay anything, but to get legal content, you will have to pay - but if it's £10/month for unlimited content...

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.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Viney

I would happily pay £10 a month for an unlimited download site.

+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

[the_lone_wolf]

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

[Viney]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

+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

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

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Viney

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

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...

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

They've been trying, no wait scratch that, failing... for years - Betcha can't name a single successful DRM technology...

Put it this way, any DRM system strong enough that it can't be broken will inconvenience above board, 100% legal consumers so badly there'll be a massive backlash, see the DRM implemented in the game "Spore" or, even better, Sony installing Spyware on your PC without your permission...


1. A court would very rarely remove your vehicle if doing so would punish someone else who was innocent of the crime you committed, such as your wife using it to get to work as a nurse, in the same way that removing a broadband connection would punish everybody in your household when it was only mum, or one of the kids that was downloading

2. Considering around one in ten people in the UK download illegally, a similar number or fewer than those who break the speed limit, I can only assume you'd be supportive of GPS speed monitoring that automatically tells the government at any time you exceed the speed limit so they could come and take your car/bike away from you? After all, you're breaking the law aren't you?

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...

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?

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by 454697819

im referring to drug runners and the like...

So you'd compare file sharing with supplying drugs?

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.