Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 46

Thread: Online music downloading, p2p etc.

  1. #1
    Ive got 10/40w for blood... THCi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere, sometime, dunno why though.
    Posts
    512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Online music downloading, p2p etc.

    Do you think that downloading music through KaZaA, WinMX, et al. Effects music sales that much, or is it just the RIAA's way to make some reperations due to the fact that music sales in the US have slumped?

    I myself will download music, listen to it for a while, start to like it, get annoyed at the low quaility of the recording, and go out and buy it.

    Ive done this for a number of albums that ive got, Elvis, System of a down (all 3 they have released), Disturbed, Foo Fighters, Lord of the Rings -Fellowship soundtrack, and a few others. Surely me downloading music, trying it out, then going to buy it is a good effect of online music, not bad?

    What are your views?


    Disclaimer: I do not endorse music piracy in anyway, nor does Hexus.net. {Enter normal Disclaimer BS here...}

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    In my own little world
    Posts
    153
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • [R4A]Bigman's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-H55N-USB3 Mini-ITX
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i5 760
      • Memory:
      • 4GB CORSAIR XMS3 PC3-10666
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 500GB HDD (+6TB Fileserver)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte HD6850 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Silverstone 450W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Sugo SG05B-450w Mini-ITX
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2407WFP
    I personally think that the RIAA are talking crap. I myself download music, and listen to it all the time. If there is an exceptional album (such as both the Coldplay albums) then I will go out and buy them. And I have. I believe those were worth buying.

    The RIAA simply go around blaming mp3s etc and the problems, then fining and suing as much as they want. The problem is that we get completely ripped off for any music we buy by the record companies. The artists themselves get somewhere in the region of jack rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish cash from your CD sale which costs you £15+.

    And its not like CDs cost anything to make. Its simply raw profit probably in the 1000%s. To greatly slow piracy, making music far cheaper would do it. But market forces are there, and thats never going to happen. So piracy will always be there.

    The good effect of online music sharing is that people go out and buy the albums. However a lot of people simply cannot afford to pay for all the music they have on their computer. I certainly can't. I simply don't have the cash to buy everything I listen to.

    I figure that its just like a radio anyway. You hear stuff you wanna hear on the radio, and its free. I hear stuff I wanna hear on my pooter, and its free. Wtf is the problem?
    -Winning isn't everything, but losing is nothing

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wantage. Oxfordshire
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I think downloading as partly affected CD SINGLES sales, the price is the main barrier. I think it would be stupid say that it has had no affect on album sales, purely because I know a fair few people who just download albums and put them on CD.
    Personally, Im against that. I download music as a way to sample artists or maybe download a single I like when I would not be interested in the whole album. Nevertheless, the price of all CD's is way to high given the costs involved in making and producing it and that provides a barrier for many people. I dont object to paying £10 for an album (play.com) but if the option is there for a free album, via downloading, people will take that.

  4. #4
    "You're my wife now!" Ravens Nest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Pandemonium Carnival
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked
    47 times in 28 posts
    I must admit to buying a lot less albums now i have Broadband, but i am trying to rectify that now as im filtering all my downloaded albums and deciding what ones i am going to buy..

    But a lot of the reason for not buying is Price, CD albums should be 9.99 old albums 4.99 & singles should be 99p
    I also think DVD's should be no more than 9.99 and 4.99 for old films.

    I'd always thought about getting the original version of Jeff buckleys Grace album and if'd and are'd about it cause of the price then saw it one day in HMV for 4.99 bought it without hesitating, to me it was the right price (for an old album)

    But the RIAA should leave us all alone, people will take things for free if they are available but if a album is good enough (And a lot are not) then they should buy it, but searching peoples machines for copyright material is just plain wrong.

    RIAA stop being so greedy and let people decide for themselves if they want to buy, most will eventually if it is good enough and cheap enough..
    Last edited by Ravens Nest; 05-08-2003 at 11:00 PM.
    "Mmm... I want you for my wife!"
    "Autom...Sprow...Canna...Tik banna...Sandwol...But no sera smee?"
    "Of course you can. We would love for you to join us."

  5. #5
    Rank Bajin
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hemel/St Albans
    Posts
    1,163
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    I only ever dowload songs that i cant really get feasibly elsewhere, or that ican only get as part of a big, expensive collection. After a coupla songs i usually go and buy the album anyway.

    I think ir will be good when the iTunes music store finally makes it over here, songs for 99p and albums for £9.99, or mebbe less. THat may not be till 2005 tho, with the difficulties of copyright over here
    The Caped Crusader :-)

  6. #6
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts
    Originally posted by Ravens Nest
    But the RIAA should leave us all alone, people will take things for free if they are available but if a album is good enough (And a lot are not) then they should buy it, but searching peoples machines for copyright material is just plain wrong.

    RIAA stop being so greedy and let people decide for themselves if they want to buy, most will eventually if it is good enough and cheap enough..
    If you consider something is too expensive, then the response to that is too simply refuse to buy it. The price doesn't give you the right to rip off the artist or the record company. If you don't have illegal material (be it music, video's or software) on your machine, then you have nothing to fear even if someone does "search" it.

    If you get caught downloading, or worse yet, uploading copyright material then you do open yourself up to legal action and it COULD end up costing you a lot of money.

    I speak as someone on the other end of this chain. I have had to threaten court action (and mean it) to protect works of my own that are copyrighted. Without that protection, a large part of my living would disappear - and as a direct result I would not produce the works that I do. In my case, had the other party not backed down and paid up, I would have proceded with the court action - I had already instructed solicitors and the party in question paid up 24 hours before my deadline expired - by sending a cheque by motorbike courier.

    If you don't like the price of something, simply don't buy it. But it does wind me up when people try to justify their illegal action by moaning about the price. The people that have the rights to a copyright right work have the right to determine the price, and you have the right to buy it or not.

    I work hard to produce my work, and I damn well object when someone decides they can just take it because the think I'm overcharging.


    In response to the original question, I think that it is a bit of both. I think that there is undoubtedly a slump due to piracy but that it is not that simple.

    Some people pirate, then buy. Some people pirate that never would have bought. If that is the case, then the copyright holder has not lost anything.

    I thihnk they RIAA have a point, but that their figures are probably wildly exaggerated - it does, after all, strengthen their case to make the problem out to be worse than it is.

  7. #7
    "You're my wife now!" Ravens Nest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Pandemonium Carnival
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked
    47 times in 28 posts
    I must admit to buying a lot less albums now i have Broadband, but i am trying to rectify that now as im filtering all my downloaded albums and deciding what ones i am going to buy.. Look saracen.. as i have wrote here i am going through my downloaded albums and sorting them into what i want to keep and what i dont, so what i keep i will buy the albums but the ones i dont i will delete

    I dont normally moan at people on this forum, but i hate all this high and mighty stuff.. i know its wrong to have something that does not belong to me, but i need time to review an album.

    I dont have the money to buy all the albums i like a couple of songs from, i used to buy all the album i could every month now i buy what i can afford, which is less than £20 per month so if you see my point of view i am reviewing before buying, but i will admit to keeping them longer before buying than anticipated, but as i have already wrote i am in the process of buying all the albums that i like..

    I own all my software and DVD's its just Music i have to take more time over..I am picky in what music i like and get annoyed when an album only has 1-2 songs i like on it, and i dont buy singles full stop.

    I take advice from friends about good films, then i see them at the cinema if i like them then i buy them.

    Games i read reviews on the internet and magazines then decide to buy.

    But music i have to make my mind about over a period of time, the songs have to grow on me before my wallet opens.

    Whatever it is that was copyrighted to you, i can understand it taht you would threaten legal action.

    Hopefully they were only previewing it and were going to buy but i know a lot of people do not.

    As i wrote at the start i buy a lot less now i have broadband, but i am buying a lot more now as i realised i was doing what i hated other people doing and enjoying something that does not belong to them.

    But now i've seen the error of my ways, i am slowly but surely replacing all my copys with originals.

    I just think the RIAA should leave us all alone, to make our own decisions on whether we buy.

    As they would just lock me up, and sue the pants of me even though i was going to buy?? why wouldnt it be better just to warn us and then come back 6 months later and see if we have bought or destroyed the offending copyright material.. just my opinion
    im sorry if it offends you or anyone else

  8. #8
    Senior Member Stringent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Neverland
    Posts
    5,226
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    155 times in 117 posts
    • Stringent's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Intel DQ57TM
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 760
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA Geforce 260GTX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Centurion
      • Operating System:
      • Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dual Iiyama 24"
      • Internet:
      • Patchy
    I personally think it does. Who on earth would pay something like £13 for a CD, or £3 for a simgle when you can get it off the net for free? There are going to be numerous ways of blocking RIAA (already in effect) so either RIAA are going to have to come up with something pretty effective, or just give up on it. Closing down P2P program's aint' gonna work either, it will just spark off more, plus if someone has an FTP server, well lets just say there are many more ways of sharing stuff.

    The listen before you buy is good, if you go to a shop and ask them to hear an album first, they should let you, it just comes down to you being bothered to trapse down there for an album you might not buy.

    I don't see P2P stopping anytime soon, although RIAA might make things difficult for us.

  9. #9
    "You're my wife now!" Ravens Nest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Pandemonium Carnival
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked
    47 times in 28 posts
    While were on the topic of CD's does anyone know the cheapest place for buying CD's from the USA.?

    As some albums i really would like to own seem to be only available there.
    "Mmm... I want you for my wife!"
    "Autom...Sprow...Canna...Tik banna...Sandwol...But no sera smee?"
    "Of course you can. We would love for you to join us."

  10. #10
    Happy Now?
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cardiff Home | Manchester Uni
    Posts
    1,326
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Ravens Nest
    While were on the topic of CD's does anyone know the cheapest place for buying CD's from the USA.?

    As some albums i really would like to own seem to be only available there.
    That's another point - sometimes you cant get stuff over here, and rare B sides etc which ive found on the net too.

    Imo, nothing wrong with sampling before you buy. If i dont like it itll get deleted from my pc and ill have saved myself the price of a CD/DVD. If i like it ill buy it! Ive just spent £100 on DVDs from the US that i have previously downloaded. Tbh - stuff of the net is usually CRAP quality, although they are releasing full DVD-Rs onto the net!! But they take 4+gig a pop to download.

    Same with albums - not a chance im ever gonna buy a single - not worth it unless it was like a quid, and albums, if i dont like them ill never listen to them again so again they get deleted. If i like em ill buy a proper copy with better sound quality that i can listen to forever, cause unlike CDRs - normal CDroms dont go bad.

    I agree that keeping it if your not gonna buy it is stealing, but there's nothing wrong with sampling something to see if you like it first as long as you delete it or buy it later.

    Another point is that the price of CDs and DVDs is rediculous. It costs less that a penny to churn out a CD or DVD, and about 10-20p for box and packaging. Overall it shouldnt cost more than a fiver + profits and stuff a tenner tops - which i would defo consider buying, but im not shelling out 15-20 quid for a CD/DVD, no way, i wait for the sales atm.
    Last edited by Bindibadgi; 06-08-2003 at 05:30 PM.
    I dont like sig pics so i turn off sigs Which doesnt help when i dont know what ive written here! DOH!

  11. #11
    Senior Member Stringent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Neverland
    Posts
    5,226
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    155 times in 117 posts
    • Stringent's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Intel DQ57TM
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 760
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA Geforce 260GTX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Centurion
      • Operating System:
      • Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dual Iiyama 24"
      • Internet:
      • Patchy
    Codecs are getting better though, things like DivX and Xvid do cut down the size of a movie to fit onto a CD say, the quality isn't that bad. Of course, the DVD is much better.

  12. #12
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts
    Originally posted by Ravens Nest
    I dont normally moan at people on this forum, but i hate all this high and mighty stuff.. i know its wrong to have something that does not belong to me, but i need time to review an album.
    If that was aimed at me, then I do take offence at that remark. My comments are not from some "high and mighty" abstract point of view, they are because my living depends on copyright.

    So far from being "high and mighty", lets look at what's at stake here. On the one hand, it's my ability to earn a living. On the other hand, it's your ability to listen to a piece of music you aren't prepared to pay a few pounds for. Please don't lecture me about "high and mighty". Who do you think really has a good reason for their point of view between those?

    If you are sampling and buying, that's fine (IMHO - though technically illegal). If you are downloading and then not buying, then that is illegal and (IMHO) not fine. What I REALLY object to is people that try to justify their illegal activities based on the price of a CD.

    It's not like we're talking about the food you need to live, here. You (and many others that have used similar arguments in the past) are effectively saying that you're prepared to break the law just to satisfy the want for something you'd like but can't afford, and then you object when the body appointed by the owners of the material you pirate threaten to take court action. That, IMHO, is sheer hypocrisy.

    Where do we draw the line? I fancy a new Mercedes ... so can I just go and take one? What about that diamond-encrusted Rolex? I mean, the jewellers can afford the loss, surely?

    If there is music that you want but cannot afford, then go without. It won't kill you.

    The only reason so many people are prepared to break this law is that they know they are likely to get away with it. Suppose you knew that there was a 90% chance that you'd get caught, and that you'd get 5 years in jail if you did ... would you still pirate music?

    Nothing I say here is going to stop people pirating music. and I know that. But it might stop the self-righteous justification that goes on. It is the copyright owners right to decide what they wish to charge. If that is £1000 per CD, then that is their right (not that they'd sell many). But that does not justify anyone deciding they are going to take what belongs to the copyright holder just because they either can't afford it or aren't prepared to pay the price.

    Originally posted by Ravens Nest
    I just think the RIAA should leave us all alone, to make our own decisions on whether we buy.
    That's like saying "lets leave it to the burglars to decide whether to burgle you or not, and the police should not get involved". If you break the law, then you take the chance that you will get caught and you pay the price if you do.

    Originally posted by Ravens Nest
    As they would just lock me up, and sue the pants of me even though i was going to buy?? why wouldnt it be better just to warn us and then come back 6 months later and see if we have bought or destroyed the offending copyright material..
    There is no way you will be locked up for downloading music. Piracy at this level is a civil offence not a criminal one and the only remedies available are damages awarded against you. Piracy only becomes a criminal offence if it is done commercially, i.e. as part of a business. If you start selling copies, then a jail sentence is a possibility.

    They cannot even sue the pants off you. The RIAA are not the ones that would decide how much you'd have to pay, if a civil case went against you. They can make a claim, but they do not decide the level of damages. What could be the killer would be legal costs. THAT could cost you thousands.

    But if you aren't prepared to face the music, don't break the law. If you are not pirating, you have nothing to fear, do you?

    The RIAA are simply protecting the rights of the copyright owners, in exactly the same way that I was when I threatened court action.


    Originally posted by Ravens Nest
    Whatever it is that was copyrighted to you, i can understand it taht you would threaten legal action.
    Nope, they weren't. The material had been used, and used to make a profit at that. They then denied, in writing, using it. As I had categoric proof it had been used, I stood my ground and am convinced that in as much as any court case is cut and dried, mine was. I would have won and the people concerned knew it.

  13. #13
    Happy Now?
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cardiff Home | Manchester Uni
    Posts
    1,326
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Flanderz
    Codecs are getting better though, things like DivX and Xvid do cut down the size of a movie to fit onto a CD say, the quality isn't that bad. Of course, the DVD is much better.
    Not to mention the extras, case, re-sellability, able to play on DVD players (could argue SVCDs offer similar there but they are multiCD).
    I dont like sig pics so i turn off sigs Which doesnt help when i dont know what ive written here! DOH!

  14. #14
    "You're my wife now!" Ravens Nest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Pandemonium Carnival
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked
    47 times in 28 posts
    If that was aimed at me, then I do take offence at that remark. My comments are not from some "high and mighty" abstract point of view, they are because my living depends on copyright
    Saracen please lets not start some silly arguement over this, i come on this site to debate topics with other people and i enjoy the chats, i dont want to argue as life is to short

    I was just being honest with people, i always try to be

    The no offence at the end of my last post was about me hoping that my point of view would not offend too much.

    What i meant when i said high and mighty is i felt like i was being dictated to when all i was putting down was that i felt that since having broadband i had bought a lot less albums (and i have felt guilty about it) so what i wrote was i am trying to rectify this by buying the albums that i appreciated playing filtering the bad (well not bad, i just did not like them much)
    i.e. White stripes (heard they were a good band copied all the albums off the internet, didnt like them much so have deleted them)

    Liked radioheads old stuff i.e. the bends, pablo honey and OK computer, bought amensiac and kid a thought they were rubbish..

    Downloaded and Listened to there new album and thought it was o.k., but not worth buying so deleted that as well.

    Downloaded OURS & Our lady peace thought they were brilliant, have bought the albums

    Do you see what im saying, im not stealing im filtering what i like and dont like, just for a while i did not buy the ones i liked just kept listening to the copys but now i am buying them (The ones i like anyway) and have bought 6 different albums in the last 2 months because of the ability to listen to them, get a feel for them realise i enjoy or dont like them and buy/delete them.

    I dont see any harm in it, but yes Kazaa and other search programs are hurting the music industry sadly .

    The only reason so many people are prepared to break this law is that they know they are likely to get away with it. Suppose you knew that there was a 90% chance that you'd get caught, and that you'd get 5 years in jail if you did ... would you still pirate music? No of course i would not, but dont you see that it can be good to try before you buy, there are negatives but im buying the albums, i dont see a problem.

    If there is music that you want but cannot afford, then go without. It won't kill you. as i said i'm listening to them to see if i like them, you could argue that the radio will play the songs if you find them catchy then buy (And i do) but sometimes albums are recommended on websites and forums such as this and i copy them off listen to them a few times get hooked or throw them away.

    Whatever it is that was copyrighted to you, i can understand it taht you would threaten legal action. Nope, they weren't. The material had been used, and used to make a profit at that. They then denied, in writing, using it. As I had categoric proof it had been used, I stood my ground and am convinced that in as much as any court case is cut and dried, mine was. I would have one and the people concerned knew it. sorry did not know that until you said. its a sad story that you had to go to those lengths..

    Nothing I say here is going to stop people pirating music. and I know that. But it might stop the self-righteous justification that goes on. It is the copyright owners right to decide what they wish to charge. If that is £1000 per CD, then that is their right (not that they'd sell many). But that does not justify anyone deciding they are going to take what belongs to the copyright holder just because they either can't afford it or aren't prepared to pay the price. Good point about them being being able to charge what they want, But cant they see that sometimes sales are not as good not just from Pirating but the High prices... charge less and you'll get more impulse buying, i know i would take chances on albums if they were cheaper, you know you hear a couple of good tunes from a band and take a walk in Woolworths and see it at 4.99 well i wouldnt sit looking at if for too long i would buy it.(Thats what i think anyway)

    I just think the RIAA should leave us all alone, to make our own decisions on whether we buy. That's like saying "lets leave it to the burglars to decide whether to burgle you or not, and the police should not get involved". If you break the law, then you take the chance that you will get caught and you pay the price if you do. There is quite a difference from typing a name and getting a song and planning the break in of someones house, of course everyone worrys about being caught but i feel some leniance is needed sometimes, also the RIAA could leave a positive message like "we understand that some people download music because they think it is too expensive, we have talked to the copyright holders and come to the conclusion that CD prices do need to come down as this will increase sales and as of next month the prices will drop to a more pallitable price range, but we will still protect copyright of these songs as strongly as ever"

    But we all know it wont happen, perhaps i should have not said leave us alone, but said be more leniant and allow time to buy the CD's that you have copys of.



    Thanks Bindibadgi, for agreeing with me on some of this topic, as the topic is a bit of a minefield.
    Last edited by Ravens Nest; 06-08-2003 at 10:07 PM.

  15. #15
    'ave it. Skii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Right here - right now.
    Posts
    4,710
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    27 times in 18 posts
    Well I haven't bought a single CD since I got Broadband, but then again there hasn't been any new music for a long time that has interested me.

    So I guess the only record sales I harm are those who have already made their millions.

  16. #16
    Ive got 10/40w for blood... THCi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere, sometime, dunno why though.
    Posts
    512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by [R4A]Bigman
    I figure that its just like a radio anyway. You hear stuff you wanna hear on the radio, and its free. I hear stuff I wanna hear on my pooter, and its free. Wtf is the problem?
    Royaties, thats the problem. Radio Stations pay them, pooters dont!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •