Letter from BPI re - file sharing

[RobbieHibs]

Letter dropped throught the door this morning re - file sharing.

Giving me a warning and slap on the wrists. They even told me what I had downloaded and politely asked me not to do this again.

Is this just a scare tactic - anyone else had this yet.

FWIW - Only downloaded one cartoon, one track and a film and been nabbed.

:eyes::eyes:

[RmR]

Out of interest what ISP are you using ?

[matty_f]

Letter dropped throught the door this morning re - file sharing.

Giving me a warning and slap on the wrists. They even told me what I had downloaded and politely asked me not to do this again.

Is this just a scare tactic - anyone else had this yet.

FWIW - Only downloaded one cartoon, one track and a film and been nabbed.

:eyes::eyes:

Who are BPI?:dunno:

I'm not sure what I think about this kind of thing - obviously there's the legal and moral wrongs of effectively stealing intellectual property like songs, films or software, but there's also something sinister about the "big brother" company watching your every move on the internet.

[RmR]

Who are BPI?:dunno:

I'm not sure what I think about this kind of thing - obviously there's the legal and moral wrongs of effectively stealing intellectual property like songs, films or software, but there's also something sinister about the "big brother" company watching your every move on the internet.

http://www.bpi.co.uk/

The artists formally known as the British Phonographic Industry. Sort of the Gestapo of the British Music industry.

[Woody1985]

The artists formally known as the British Pornographic Industry. Sort of the Gestapo of the British Music industry

[Removed]

Letter dropped throught the door this morning re - file sharing.

Giving me a warning and slap on the wrists. They even told me what I had downloaded and politely asked me not to do this again.

Is this just a scare tactic - anyone else had this yet.

FWIW - Only downloaded one cartoon, one track and a film and been nabbed.

:eyes::eyes:


Out of interest what ISP are you using ?

And where did you download from? I use Limewire quite a lot :paranoid:

[Peevemor]

I'm not sure, but I reckon they themselves have put files up for sharing in order to have the IP addresses of the people downloading them.

[The_Todd]

I'm not sure, but I reckon they themselves have put files up for sharing in order to have the IP addresses of the people downloading them.

Not always, but I suspect in some cases they do.

[sleeping giant]

http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

Should help

[Swoosh]

They do not put the files up themselves and track IP's as this would be entrapment.
What they do is they watch files other people have put up. They then collect a list of IP's from this, which they send to ISP's.
The ISP's then search there data base and send you out a letter.
The BPI do not see any information. They only have one IP address and thats it. They do not know its you, the only people that know are the ISPs but for the time being they are not sharing that info with anyone else.

In order for you to be prosecuted the BPI would have to get a court order to get information about you from your ISP. This as you may know costs lots of dosh. So they can’t really do it. Its basically a warning. But if they caught you around 20 odd times they may take it further.
But there’s very little chance of that happening.

As someone else asked, what ISP are you with and what did you use to download the file? Was it a torrent or Limewire?

[robinp]

They do not put the files up themselves and track IP's as this would be entrapment.
What they do is they watch files other people have put up. They then collect a list of IP's from this, which they send to ISP's.
The ISP's then search there data base and send you out a letter.
The BPI do not see any information. They only have one IP address and thats it. They do not know its you, the only people that know are the ISPs but for the time being they are not sharing that info with anyone else.

In order for you to be prosecuted the BPI would have to get a court order to get information about you from your ISP. This as you may know costs lots of dosh. So they can’t really do it. Its basically a warning. But if they caught you around 20 odd times they may take it further.
But there’s very little chance of that happening.

As someone else asked, what ISP are you with and what did you use to download the file? Was it a torrent or Limewire?


Thirded.

I ........ I "know" somebody :duck: who downloads about 5gb a week of TV shows and sports from the US. I......he's never had a letter to date and I remember he was with Virgin Media the last time we chatted.

[Woody1985]

There was a boy in the Sunday paper who was caught downloading a Scooter song and the production company sent him a £500 fine.

:LOL: That's what he gets for downloading a scooter song.

[sleeping giant]

There was a boy in the Sunday paper who was caught downloading a Scooter song and the production company sent him a £500 fine.

:LOL: That's what he gets for downloading a scooter song.

Ive just downloaded their album.
My boy thinks they are fab:greengrin

[HibsMax]

newsgroups.

[fordie2]

Guy I work with got 2 £500 fines through the post regarding illegal downloading from some lawyer in London, hes just gonna ignore them and see what they do!

[EH14]

Letter dropped throught the door this morning re - file sharing.

Giving me a warning and slap on the wrists. They even told me what I had downloaded and politely asked me not to do this again.

Is this just a scare tactic - anyone else had this yet.

FWIW - Only downloaded one cartoon, one track and a film and been nabbed.

:eyes::eyes:

Sure it wasn't one of these? :cool2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7766000/7766448.stm

[Antifa Hibs]

Fk the MPAA/BPI etc. It's a losing battle for them. They should just give up.

FWIW I only use Rapidshare/Newsgroups now. Lot more safer (and quicker).

BTW I love the Pirate Bay guys responses to these firms > http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php :greengrin

[Steve-O]

Fk the MPAA/BPI etc. It's a losing battle for them. They should just give up.

FWIW I only use Rapidshare/Newsgroups now. Lot more safer (and quicker).

BTW I love the Pirate Bay guys responses to these firms > http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php :greengrin

:greengrin Funny stuff :agree:

[Big_D]

newsgroups.

With SSL

[mickeythehibbee]

Is it just me who thnks that it's fair game for someone who has paid money to create a game/film/song should in fact be paid for what they do?:confused:

I don't see why all of these people who download stuff illegally for free are deemed to be some sort of good guy in the battle against corporations. Why the hell do they owe you anything for free?

Now personally i don't really care. I have friends who illegally download stuff all the time and i merely admonish them with a look when they do it and say no more about it.

However when someone like Antifa says "Fk the BPI", why exactly? It's not them that's doing anything wrong and people should be paid for their intellectual property, Just like people should accept the consequences for their own actions. Anyone file sharing really should know the risk by now!

All IMHO of course :wink:

[Speedy]

Is it just me who thnks that it's fair game for someone who has paid money to create a game/film/song should in fact be paid for what they do?:confused:

I don't see why all of these people who download stuff illegally for free are deemed to be some sort of good guy in the battle against corporations. Why the hell do they owe you anything for free?

Now personally i don't really care. I have friends who illegally download stuff all the time and i merely admonish them with a look when they do it and say no more about it.

However when someone like Antifa says "Fk the BPI", why exactly? It's not them that's doing anything wrong and people should be paid for their intellectual property, Just like people should accept the consequences for their own actions. Anyone file sharing really should know the risk by now!

All IMHO of course :wink:

Here you go :tin hat:, you might need it when hunting down knock off Nigel and his mates

[matty_f]

Is it just me who thnks that it's fair game for someone who has paid money to create a game/film/song should in fact be paid for what they do?:confused:

I don't see why all of these people who download stuff illegally for free are deemed to be some sort of good guy in the battle against corporations. Why the hell do they owe you anything for free?

Now personally i don't really care. I have friends who illegally download stuff all the time and i merely admonish them with a look when they do it and say no more about it.

However when someone like Antifa says "Fk the BPI", why exactly? It's not them that's doing anything wrong and people should be paid for their intellectual property, Just like people should accept the consequences for their own actions. Anyone file sharing really should know the risk by now!

All IMHO of course :wink:

:agree:

[Steve-O]

Is it just me who thnks that it's fair game for someone who has paid money to create a game/film/song should in fact be paid for what they do?:confused:

I don't see why all of these people who download stuff illegally for free are deemed to be some sort of good guy in the battle against corporations. Why the hell do they owe you anything for free?

Now personally i don't really care. I have friends who illegally download stuff all the time and i merely admonish them with a look when they do it and say no more about it.

However when someone like Antifa says "Fk the BPI", why exactly? It's not them that's doing anything wrong and people should be paid for their intellectual property, Just like people should accept the consequences for their own actions. Anyone file sharing really should know the risk by now!

All IMHO of course :wink:

Whilst I agree on some levels, there is a flipside to this. I (and most others I suspect) simply can't afford to buy all the albums that I want. Boo hoo you might say, BUT, in my case I shell out quite a bit of cash going to concerts, sometimes to see bands whose album I might not have purchased. Had I not downloaded the album, and liked it, then I probably wouldn't be going to the gig.

Just another way of looking at it and should also be noted bands are touring more than ever as they know this is a sure fire way of making their money these days.

Btw, I have spent a massive amount legitimately buying music over the years and my collection of legal material FAR outweighs anything I have downloaded...

[CropleyWasGod]

Whilst I agree on some levels, there is a flipside to this. I (and most others I suspect) simply can't afford to buy all the albums that I want. Boo hoo you might say, BUT, in my case I shell out quite a bit of cash going to concerts, sometimes to see bands whose album I might not have purchased. Had I not downloaded the album, and liked it, then I probably wouldn't be going to the gig.

Just another way of looking at it and should also be noted bands are touring more than ever as they know this is a sure fire way of making their money these days.

Btw, I have spent a massive amount legitimately buying music over the years and my collection of legal material FAR outweighs anything I have downloaded...

I can agree with you on some points here. When I was young, we all swapped albums.... same scenario, couldn't afford to buy them..... and taped them. Result was.... we became fans, went to the gigs, bought the next album. It was illegal, but the industry tolerated it on the basis that greater income was being generated.

The same applies to file-swapping, although it's on a much much greater scale now, to the extent that I reckon it's threatening the industry.

If organisations like the BPI didn't exist, it would be utter mayhem. Ultimately, if we all file-swapped, there would be no point in an artist or a record company spending money to put work out there.... there would be no money in it for them. Where would the industry be then?

[Sergio sledge]

Is it just me who thnks that it's fair game for someone who has paid money to create a game/film/song should in fact be paid for what they do?:confused:

I don't see why all of these people who download stuff illegally for free are deemed to be some sort of good guy in the battle against corporations. Why the hell do they owe you anything for free?

Now personally i don't really care. I have friends who illegally download stuff all the time and i merely admonish them with a look when they do it and say no more about it.

However when someone like Antifa says "Fk the BPI", why exactly? It's not them that's doing anything wrong and people should be paid for their intellectual property, Just like people should accept the consequences for their own actions. Anyone file sharing really should know the risk by now!

All IMHO of course :wink:

:agree: apparently its OK to steal as long as you are sitting in the comfort of your own home doing it......

What exactly is the difference between illegally downloading something, and picking up a CD in HMV and walking out without paying?


Whilst I agree on some levels, there is a flipside to this. I (and most others I suspect) simply can't afford to buy all the albums that I want. Boo hoo you might say, BUT, in my case I shell out quite a bit of cash going to concerts, sometimes to see bands whose album I might not have purchased. Had I not downloaded the album, and liked it, then I probably wouldn't be going to the gig.

Just another way of looking at it and should also be noted bands are touring more than ever as they know this is a sure fire way of making their money these days.

Btw, I have spent a massive amount legitimately buying music over the years and my collection of legal material FAR outweighs anything I have downloaded...

Whilst I understand where you are coming from, just because you have subsequently given money to the band from going to a concert doesn't make the original crime OK. If I went into a shop and stole a book, and liked it so much that I went out and bought every other book by that author, does it justify the original theft? Would the police let me off with it because of what I had subsequently purchased? What happened to the good old days of borrowing a tape from your friends, listening to it, and if you like it going out and buying it.

If you can't afford to buy something, then why can't you just make a sacrifice and go without? Plenty of people have to make sacrifices for monetary reasons. In fact, just last week myself and the wife had to do without our usual meal out because we couldn't afford it. I suppose we could have gone to a restaurant and left without paying though.....

I do agree though, that the real money isn't in CD sales any more, it is in concerts, merchandising, and radio/tv airtime. Evidenced by the fact Amazon.co.uk are able to sell recently released albums for £3 for download.

[Andy74]

Guy I work with got 2 £500 fines through the post regarding illegal downloading from some lawyer in London, hes just gonna ignore them and see what they do!

This was on Watchdog. Unless they get your PC/laptop and can trace it having come to you them the fact your IP address was used does not mean you were the one doing it.

[Antifa Hibs]

It's not stealing, it's sharing. Hence the term, file sharing :duck:

And i'd hardly say its threatening the industry. Oasis, Radiohead, Coldplay, Weller, Bowie etc etc, all skint right enough. James Bond, Bourne, Lord of the rings, Harry Potter etc, never made any money did they. Adobe, Sony and Microsoft, all struggling to make ends meet. :yawn:

Mon the file sharers :scarf::greengrin

[hibsbollah]

It's not stealing, it's sharing. Hence the term, file sharing :duck:

And i'd hardly say its threatening the industry. Oasis, Radiohead, Coldplay, Weller, Bowie etc etc, all skint right enough. James Bond, Bourne, Lord of the rings, Harry Potter etc, never made any money did they. Adobe, Sony and Microsoft, all struggling to make ends meet. :yawn:

Mon the file sharers :scarf::greengrin

You're missing the point. Its not the record companies relationships with Oasis and the like that will be threatened by continued loss of revenue due to copyright theft. It just makes it less likely that an A&R man will want to take a risk signing the new young up and coming band on the basis of seeing them at a gig. The result? less choice and more bland banal music for everyone:bitchy:

[Antifa Hibs]

You're missing the point. Its not the record companies relationships with Oasis and the like that will be threatened by continued loss of revenue due to copyright theft. It just makes it less likely that an A&R man will want to take a risk signing the new young up and coming band on the basis of seeing them at a gig. The result? less choice and more bland banal music for everyone:bitchy:

Nah.

There's still money to be made. You only need to look at bands like The Enemy and Glasvegas amongst others. Fairly new bands but pretty big, selling out gigs, having a bit chart success etc. I don't think this filesharing thing is that big a deal TBH. There's bands that I now love, because I downloaded or got a copy of their CD, take Radiohead for example, had hardly heard of any of their stuff, got a copy of their CD's and loved them, spend £35 on a gig ticket and £30 on a t-shirt and poster, will purchase their next album from HMV or something. If it wasn't for me getting a so-called illegal copy of their lp's i'd have never have got into them.

[mickeythehibbee]

It's not stealing, it's sharing. Hence the term, file sharing :duck:

And i'd hardly say its threatening the industry. Oasis, Radiohead, Coldplay, Weller, Bowie etc etc, all skint right enough. James Bond, Bourne, Lord of the rings, Harry Potter etc, never made any money did they. Adobe, Sony and Microsoft, all struggling to make ends meet. :yawn:

Mon the file sharers :scarf::greengrin


Oh i'm sorry you're right, how wrong of me to forget. Stealing from those who are well off isn't really theft at all is it? Hell you're just like Robin Hood but without all the good aspects! :bye:

But it's pointless arguing with you because anyone i've ever met who illegally downloads all their stuff they always have this high opinion of themselves because they get everything for free and us mere mortals have to pay for it.

[Pretty Boy]

Is it just me who thnks that it's fair game for someone who has paid money to create a game/film/song should in fact be paid for what they do?:confused:

I don't see why all of these people who download stuff illegally for free are deemed to be some sort of good guy in the battle against corporations. Why the hell do they owe you anything for free?

Now personally i don't really care. I have friends who illegally download stuff all the time and i merely admonish them with a look when they do it and say no more about it.

However when someone like Antifa says "Fk the BPI", why exactly? It's not them that's doing anything wrong and people should be paid for their intellectual property, Just like people should accept the consequences for their own actions. Anyone file sharing really should know the risk by now!

All IMHO of course :wink:


Don't agree at all. I will happily support an up and coming artist by going to a gig to see them or buying a record from themselves direct or an indie record label.

I absolutely refuse to pay the ridiculous mark up that the major labels charge for Cds, gig tickets and merchandise. This money does not go to the band, it goes to label executives to line their own pockets.

A CD costs about £4 to record and produce, why then should i pay £12-£15 for that album in HMV or Zavvi or whatever, sorry this is extortion. When you download a song, film etc etc from the internet you are not destroying grass roots music in anyway, the only people getting hurt have more than enough money as it is.

[Makaveli]

:agree: apparently its OK to steal as long as you are sitting in the comfort of your own home doing it......

What exactly is the difference between illegally downloading something, and picking up a CD in HMV and walking out without paying?



Whilst I understand where you are coming from, just because you have subsequently given money to the band from going to a concert doesn't make the original crime OK. If I went into a shop and stole a book, and liked it so much that I went out and bought every other book by that author, does it justify the original theft? Would the police let me off with it because of what I had subsequently purchased? What happened to the good old days of borrowing a tape from your friends, listening to it, and if you like it going out and buying it.

If you can't afford to buy something, then why can't you just make a sacrifice and go without? Plenty of people have to make sacrifices for monetary reasons. In fact, just last week myself and the wife had to do without our usual meal out because we couldn't afford it. I suppose we could have gone to a restaurant and left without paying though.....

I do agree though, that the real money isn't in CD sales any more, it is in concerts, merchandising, and radio/tv airtime. Evidenced by the fact Amazon.co.uk are able to sell recently released albums for £3 for download.

Seriously? You really don't see the difference between physically taking a finite product from a retailer (or food from a restaurant) and downloading a torrent? :confused:

[Speedy]

:agree: apparently its OK to steal as long as you are sitting in the comfort of your own home doing it......

What exactly is the difference between illegally downloading something, and picking up a CD in HMV and walking out without paying?



Whilst I understand where you are coming from, just because you have subsequently given money to the band from going to a concert doesn't make the original crime OK. If I went into a shop and stole a book, and liked it so much that I went out and bought every other book by that author, does it justify the original theft? Would the police let me off with it because of what I had subsequently purchased? What happened to the good old days of borrowing a tape from your friends, listening to it, and if you like it going out and buying it.

If you can't afford to buy something, then why can't you just make a sacrifice and go without? Plenty of people have to make sacrifices for monetary reasons. In fact, just last week myself and the wife had to do without our usual meal out because we couldn't afford it. I suppose we could have gone to a restaurant and left without paying though.....

I do agree though, that the real money isn't in CD sales any more, it is in concerts, merchandising, and radio/tv airtime. Evidenced by the fact Amazon.co.uk are able to sell recently released albums for £3 for download.

You realise that is also illegal?

[Makaveli]

You realise that is also illegal?

It's also illegal to copy a CD you own onto iTunes even if you retain the CD, madness!

[Arch Stanton]

What exactly is the difference between illegally downloading something, and picking up a CD in HMV and walking out without paying?


The first one is a breach of copyright law and the second is straightforward theft (as in 'though shalt not steal' - you won't find any concept of copyright infringement in the ten commandments). I personally finding the concept of buying something which you don't subsequently own a bit of a dirty trick - Microsoft have been leeching off that concept for years.

I can accept the need for the protection of intellectual property - I just think it was a big omission when they didn't make 'ripping people off' a crime at the same time they introduced copyright laws.

[mickeythehibbee]

A CD costs about £4 to record and produce, why then should i pay £12-£15 for that album in HMV or Zavvi or whatever, sorry this is extortion. When you download a song, film etc etc from the internet you are not destroying grass roots music in anyway, the only people getting hurt have more than enough money as it is.


I have to agree with this point. It is extremely expensive, far more than it should be. However as with anything else in life it is irrelevant of whether you like it or not that doesn't give you the right to go and take it for free. :bitchy:

Maybe i'm in the minority, and it is just my opinion but i'm sorry, no matter how much it costs, or how much i disagree with the reason for the price i would never just go and take something anyway :agree:

[Disc O'Dave]

It's also illegal to copy a CD you own onto iTunes even if you retain the CD, madness!

No, it isn't.

As long as you have done so to allow you to listen to your own CD digitally, it is not illegal. You are legally allowed to copy for yourself also as an archive, or indeed, a back-up.

If you were then to distribute that music in that electronic format, or burn a copy for someone else, it would become illegal.

If copying for your own use was illegal, you wouldn't see those "Turntable to MP3" devices for sale in good old honest John Lewis, would you? I imagine the iTunes "standard bearer of DRM" image would also be shot by allowing you to rip your own CD's into iTunes.....

[Sergio sledge]

Seriously? You really don't see the difference between physically taking a finite product from a retailer (or food from a restaurant) and downloading a torrent? :confused:

Nope, explain to me how it is different?

Might be technically a different crime you are charged with, but it is the same result. In both cases you obtain the music, or movie that you want in an illegal manner. Why is one type of theft (downloading a torrent) any better than another type of theft? (half inching a CD from a shop.)


You realise that is also illegal?

Is it, so is lending a dvd to a friend to watch also illegal? Even if they are not copying it? I genuinely didn't know this....

[Makaveli]

If copying for your own use was illegal, you wouldn't see those "Turntable to MP3" devices for sale in good old honest John Lewis, would you? I imagine the iTunes "standard bearer of DRM" image would also be shot by allowing you to rip your own CD's into iTunes...... Yes you would. Just like FM transmitters for iPods have been ruled illegal in the UK several times yet you can buy them all over the high street as well as from Amazon etc. As for iTunes, money talks: DRM ties people to Apple products. They're not on a crusade or anything.



Nope, explain to me how it is different?

Might be technically a different crime you are charged with, but it is the same result. In both cases you obtain the music, or movie that you want in an illegal manner. Why is one type of theft (downloading a torrent) any better than another type of theft? (half inching a CD from a shop.)

It's more than "technically different". One involves actually taking something from someone else - the shop. The other doesn't.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's more than "technically different". One involves actually taking something from someone else - the shop. The other doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Taking royalties from artists and writers, income from companies and profits from shareholders..... how is it that not "taking something from someone else"?

[Makaveli]

Taking royalties from artists and writers, income from companies and profits from shareholders..... how is it that not "taking something from someone else"?


Again, its to do with the finite nature of the product. Legally, there is a massive difference between taking something from someone and not giving them what they are entitled to. If downloading someone's work meant you took their royalties I think the problem would be more widespread than it is!

Downloading a song means an artist does not get royalties. He is no worse off than before, even though he should be better off.

Stealing a CD means that an artist cannot get the royalties because nobody can ever buy that CD. He is worse off.

For clarity: I believe that both are morally wrong, even if not equally so.

[Arch Stanton]

He is no worse off than before, even though he should be better off.

I don't know about anyone else, but if there were no 'file sharing' sites then I for one wouldn't have spent any more money purchasing CDs - why is it always assumed that I would?

In fact, I reckon that if you were to add up all the proclaimed losses by the music and software industry you would probably find that they add up to more than the GDP of the planet - such is the avariciousness of their pricing policies.

Nope - not impressed here.

[Makaveli]

I don't know about anyone else, but if there were no 'file sharing' sites then I for one wouldn't have spent any more money purchasing CDs - why is it always assumed that I would?

In fact, I reckon that if you were to add up all the proclaimed losses by the music and software industry you would probably find that they add up to more than the GDP of the planet - such is the avariciousness of their pricing policies.

Nope - not impressed here.

Of course, and I am with you 100% on this. It makes me laugh when the music and film industries say piracy has cost them £x billion this year etc. I would think its fairly safe to say that most people who download stuff wouldn't have bought it if downloading wasn't an option.

I would say you are harming nobody, but perhaps it could be said that you should be helping them.

Personally I feel that artists are morally entitled to something for their work.

[HibsMax]

Again, its to do with the finite nature of the product. Legally, there is a massive difference between taking something from someone and not giving them what they are entitled to. If downloading someone's work meant you took their royalties I think the problem would be more widespread than it is!

Downloading a song means an artist does not get royalties. He is no worse off than before, even though he should be better off.

Stealing a CD means that an artist cannot get the royalties because nobody can ever buy that CD. He is worse off.

For clarity: I believe that both are morally wrong, even if not equally so.
I genuinely do not believe that the artists suffer through stolen CDs. I am sure there is some form of insurance that protects them against theft. Plus, if the CD has been sold to a distributor and then a store.....has the artist not already been paid? Why does it matter if the CD ends up in the hands of a punter on the street? When the store sells the CD the profit they make foes to themselves, not back to the record label, etc. unless they have some sort of sell or return deal.

Before anyone shoots me down, I am not saying the above is correct, I'm saying it's how I would think things might be. People in The Biz will have a better idea. Where's Bad Martini?

[Disc O'Dave]

Yes you would. Just like FM transmitters for iPods have been ruled illegal in the UK several times yet you can buy them all over the high street as well as from Amazon etc.




Once again, this is no longer the case - the law you refer to covered pirate broadcasting, and in it's old form, covered any device capable of transmitting an FM signal. At the time, the government acknowledged that the iPod devices technically fell foul, but that they understood that they should be ok in the spirit of the law.

The law then was modified to bring the UK into line with the rest of Europe to allow very short range transmitters for personal use in private cars.

[Steve-O]

:agree: apparently its OK to steal as long as you are sitting in the comfort of your own home doing it......

What exactly is the difference between illegally downloading something, and picking up a CD in HMV and walking out without paying?



Whilst I understand where you are coming from, just because you have subsequently given money to the band from going to a concert doesn't make the original crime OK. If I went into a shop and stole a book, and liked it so much that I went out and bought every other book by that author, does it justify the original theft? Would the police let me off with it because of what I had subsequently purchased? What happened to the good old days of borrowing a tape from your friends, listening to it, and if you like it going out and buying it.

If you can't afford to buy something, then why can't you just make a sacrifice and go without? Plenty of people have to make sacrifices for monetary reasons. In fact, just last week myself and the wife had to do without our usual meal out because we couldn't afford it. I suppose we could have gone to a restaurant and left without paying though.....

I do agree though, that the real money isn't in CD sales any more, it is in concerts, merchandising, and radio/tv airtime. Evidenced by the fact Amazon.co.uk are able to sell recently released albums for £3 for download.

At the end of the day, if I can't obtain some music for free, then I am going to spend less money on music in general. I suspect most people would be in the same boat. So, a certain band could have say, concert and t-shirt money from me, or they could have no money at all from me because I haven't listened to them because I didn't want to take a chance buying an album I didn't know much about for a tenner...?

While less money is being made on CDs due to file sharing, I would say bands are making far more via touring than they were before the internet started being used in this way.

So, are they really losing any money, or has this illegal downloading not just opened up opportunities to for bands to make more money??

[Steve-O]

I don't know about anyone else, but if there were no 'file sharing' sites then I for one wouldn't have spent any more money purchasing CDs - why is it always assumed that I would?

In fact, I reckon that if you were to add up all the proclaimed losses by the music and software industry you would probably find that they add up to more than the GDP of the planet - such is the avariciousness of their pricing policies.

Nope - not impressed here.

That's the point. I probably would just listen to less music and like less bands and therefore spend less on concerts and other band related merchandise.

[jonty]

At the end of the day, if I can't obtain some music for free, then I am going to spend less money on music in general.

Tape a radio broadcast. :greengrin

Call me old fashioned but my gran used to say "If you can't afford it, you cant have it"

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm finding it difficult to buy presents for xmas and birthdays. Gone are the old "I'll get you a CD or DVD".

I've read a few intersting articles from lwayer-types over the years.
You don't own a CD, you own a license to listen to the tracks...... if you own an LP its still illegal to obtain a ripped CD copy - one is analogue, one is digital (money goes into the digital enhancement etc etc).

For the life of me, I can't understand why it's taken soooooo long for the record companies to release albums on download (ok- I can - money).


just more inane ramblings from a caffiene deprived tech. :cool2:


And for those claiming it's too expensive - well the price of CDs has dropped from aroun £18 when they were first introduced to less than £10, while the cost of living has gone up.

Hell -you can even download top 10 albums for £6.50 (take that) at amazon - with other albums from £3.00 (Leona Lewis - Spirit)

/edit: and this amusing article http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/09/youtube_cat_stevens_and_me.html

[Arch Stanton]

I would say you are harming nobody, but perhaps it could be said that you should be helping them.

Personally I feel that artists are morally entitled to something for their work.

I wouldn't argue with that - but things are never so simple. It is just a pity that you cannot help artists without helping the media conglomerates to a much larger degree. And you can give no help at all to the guy who played the great sax solo who will have to make do with the couple of hours wages he received for doing the session. These anomalies are inherent with copyright. For example, Amazon are arguably doing artists as big a disservice as file-sharing sites by selling Used CDs, since artists only receive royalties when a new CD is sold.

Personally I think the record companies should drop all this moral high ground posturing and try to gain public support by making things fairer for everybody. For a start they could make lesser quality versions freely available and then enlist public help in stopping commercial versions being transmitted.

[goosano]

-
Is it, so is lending a dvd to a friend to watch also illegal? Even if they are not copying it? I genuinely didn't know this....

Yes, and igorance has no standing in the law.

Legally speaking you are classed just the same as those that you castigate for sharing from torrent

[500miles]

Sure it wasn't one of these? :cool2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7766000/7766448.stm

Sixty-year-old 'Mary' from Bedfordshire received a similar letter.

"I'm a pensioner, so it was such a shock. I didn't even know what a P2P network was before this," she said. "I didn't sleep for a week."

Dirty old cow.

[Arch Stanton]

Sixty-year-old 'Mary' from Bedfordshire received a similar letter.

"I'm a pensioner, so it was such a shock. I didn't even know what a P2P network was before this," she said. "I didn't sleep for a week."

Dirty old cow.

I wonder if there is a program out there that will clone the IP addresses of people who only use their Internet connection once a month and take over 2 hours to send an email.

But I guess I should take be responding with more gravitas - it is certainly deplorable that artists like John Stagliano are being deprived of the rewards for their artistic endeavors.

[HenryMonk]

Nope, explain to me how it is different?

Might be technically a different crime you are charged with, but it is the same result. In both cases you obtain the music, or movie that you want in an illegal manner. Why is one type of theft (downloading a torrent) any better than another type of theft? (half inching a CD from a shop.)



Is it, so is lending a dvd to a friend to watch also illegal? Even if they are not copying it? I genuinely didn't know this....


that **** for sergio sledge, if it wasnt for good c's like himself shareholders and fat cat execs would not make any money.

keep up the good work sergi yah mug

[HibsMax]

Interesting Reading (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/31678)