Downloading illegally

[gbb]

Interesting program, but nothing i didn't know already.
Even among the musicians, theres no agreement as to whether they need protecting. It appears downloaders actually spend more on music than non downloaders.
I'm a downloader, but rarely spend any money on music...but then, i never did anyway.

Ultimately, when and if new regulations/law/penalties come in, then i'll have to change my habits.

I should add....i download very very little music and dont share...the ultimate selfishness

 

[swee'pea99]

Most of the music you can download of the internet is crap quality anyway. Im a luddite I buy vinyl.

Vinyl? What is this 'vinyl'? Is it something to do with the wireless? Or the gramophone, perchance?

 

[summerdays]

And I'm not an illegal downloader and I spent more than £44 pounds easily on CD's and DVD's last year. But I ended up confused about what musician's wanted at the end of the program.

 

[Lardyboy]

I'll admit to downloading illegally, but, I will purchase the artists "product" if I like it. Unfortunately, nothing new has really been worthwhile so far this year.

 

[Norm]

The difficulty, and someone did mention YouTube earlier, is that I use stuff which has been "illegally" uploaded to get recommendations on new artists to search out. I wouldn't have any Little Boots or Hera if I hadn't listened on YouTube and, whilst both of those have legitimately uploaded their own videos, they were only linked because I was watching other copyrighted stuff and used the "related videos" links.

 

[Milo]

[quote name='swee'pea99']Vinyl? What is this 'vinyl'? Is it something to do with the wireless? Or the gramophone, perchance?[/QUOTE]
It is indeed for my gramophone sound lovely it does. It even gets attached to a valve amp for that real slippers and pipe effect.

 

[Milo]

The problem with most modern music is that even if it is any good (which is rare now) if you get it on cd or even a decent download such as flac it is so highly compressed it sounds like utter jank anyway.

 

[darkstar]

The problem with most modern music is that even if it is any good (which is rare now) if you get it on cd or even a decent download such as flac it is so highly compressed it sounds like utter jank anyway.

When it comes to MP3s it's all about the speakers you play them on, the actual quality is good, it takes a very well trained ear to tell the imperfections. Buy some decent speakers for your computer, not just £20 on a random set then it will make a huge difference.

As for illegal downloading, i do it, films and music. I buy CDs when it's a small artist getting on the ladder, but when it comes to huge artists i don't bother. They make most of their money from touring anyway. I buy DVDs when i feel the film is good enough, i'd say i went into three figures for bothe CDs and DVDs combined last year.

If you listen to music on youtube, then the chances are they have been illegally uploaded.

 

[Milo]

Sorry I mean compressed in the dynamic sense i.e same level of loudness all the way through. Play it though anything other than an ipod or a crappy midi system and it will make your ears bleed. Listening to music through computer speakers is not for me.

 

[User169]

Old men in suits who are trying to protect their revenue stream from long dead artists without adding new and quality material to the market place deserve to die skint imho.
Elvis tracks will be copyrighted for a long while - protecting the creator my arse.

Agreed. Copyright protection lasts for far too long.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

what happens if you download a digital version of something you already own on cassette/vinyl?

iirc the excuse trotted out for the high cost of music in the '80s was that it was not the medium that was expensive, but the 'license' to listen to the music, which is what you were buying.

speaking of the '80s, anyone who believes that illegal downloading will on its own kill the music industry clearly doesn't remember the same arguments about home tape recording 25 years ago. it's was bollocks then as now; often you'd tape from your friends and then buy the original when you had the cash, especially if the record had decent artwork.

the reason the music industry is on its knees (or so it says) now is twofold: they haven't worked out how to embrace the digital age; and the standard of product these days is that low that it's no surprise that folk aren't buying. the business model of filling the charts with artists with all the longevity of a teen's first crush is no way to build a back catalogue that will see both artist and label right for years to come, especially as the cash-cow that was the female teenager has now got the technology to listen to their idols for free and, as teenagers are the biggest consumers of illegal downloads, it's a crass strategy that has come back to bite the labels on the bum. hearing lewis walsh bleating on about it was a real eye-roller…

 

[mr_cellophane]

I always thought that that was legal, however at the weekend I read that it had just been made legal. That bit doesn't matter to me as half my vinyl is so obscure that it isn't available for downloading and I had to rip them all manually.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I've been wondering recently why buying 2nd hand books and CDs isn't illegal. Presumably the authors aren't getting any royalties the second time around.

 

[gbb]

I've been wondering recently why buying 2nd hand books and CDs isn't illegal. Presumably the authors aren't getting any royalties the second time around.

Thats always occured to me too...

 

[Debian]

what happens if you download a digital version of something you already own on cassette/vinyl?

iirc the excuse trotted out for the high cost of music in the '80s was that it was not the medium that was expensive, but the 'license' to listen to the music, which is what you were buying.

speaking of the '80s, anyone who believes that illegal downloading will on its own kill the music industry clearly doesn't remember the same arguments about home tape recording 25 years ago. it's was bollocks then as now; often you'd tape from your friends and then buy the original when you had the cash, especially if the record had decent artwork.

the reason the music industry is on its knees (or so it says) now is twofold: they haven't worked out how to embrace the digital age; and the standard of product these days is that low that it's no surprise that folk aren't buying. the business model of filling the charts with artists with all the longevity of a teen's first crush is no way to build a back catalogue that will see both artist and label right for years to come, especially as the cash-cow that was the female teenager has now got the technology to listen to their idols for free and, as teenagers are the biggest consumers of illegal downloads, it's a crass strategy that has come back to bite the labels on the bum. hearing lewis walsh bleating on about it was a real eye-roller…

+1

I wholeheartedly agree with the point you made about downloading a copy of something you already own on vinyl or CD. The original purchase price of the disc included a lifetime license to listen to whatever was on it. So how can it be illegal to download something I already own? Sharing - well that's a different kettle but I don't share anyway.

And how about downloading "illegal" copies of TV shows that I've already watched, or maybe I haven't watched, who knows? But either way I've paid my TV license and my Sky subscription so I've already "paid" for the TV show. So again, surely I have a license to watch it again.

Building a music back catalogue? I haven't heard a new band in years that has a snowball's chance in Hell of being listened to in 20 years time, not even in five years time - not in the same populist sense that the supergroups of the past are still listened to en masse anyway.