Why is music piracy so bad?

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by kronas

ok so if you had it your way i would not be able to download a track... ok in that case every CD i just bought over the past few months (with the exception of one) can all go back, and yes im buying no more CD's or using any legitimate means im not prepared to waste money on something that MAY turn out to be utter tosh!

you hear one song on some albums the rest can be drivel, i want to hear the rest before making a purchase.

It is nothing to do with me getting my way. I work in the music business, I know what goes into the production of the music, some of which by your own admission you have downloaded, some of those you don't also own on CD. If everyone did what you did - there would be no mainstream releases - period.

Originally Posted by kronas

i had a look in to a few they all wanted card details, im not prepared to go in to the hassle of canceling something after the trial expires.....

i know how some compaines work and im not willing to commit myself to a service like that.

iTunes Music Store is a FREE program, it's also a great way of keeping digital copies of the music you own. You do not have to put in any personal information whatsoever to hear quality previews of nearly 3/4 million songs.

Also Amazon offers tens of thousands of tracks for preview.

Also you can walk into ANY Virgin Megastore, walk up to the counter with any CD in the store and they will put it on a listening post for you.

Originally Posted by kronas

im sick of the pathetic analogys, this is diffarent the content is there, people either choose to use p2p or not its the persons choice some buy some dont, its a fact, learn to deal with facts and stick with the subject instead of using baseless analogys, each case has its merits, yes if you download and dont buy its wrong, however if you download and buy there is nothing wrong with that.

another CD sale, more money for the record company and artist.

Whilst it may not be as morally wrong to download a track illegally then go and buy it - firstly it is still under copyright laws a breach of copyright. Second, why do you keep the inferior digital files you downloaded if you've bought the CD?

The rules of the game are simple - you're not allowed to download unauthorised copies of music, videos, books, artistic work, whatever - however you try to justify your actions you're in breach of copyright. Peer to peer systems are not the way to find new music, and you do not have any rights whatsoever to download music from such sources, even going on to buy the album later is no justification under the laws of copyright. And let me remind you that the rules on copyright are governed by the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act (I think I have got them in the right order) and not the RIAA, which isn't even based in this country.

I also don't believe, Kronas, that you don't possess illegal copies of music on your system. You're telling me you delete EVERY track that isn't on a CD you don't buy? Pull the other one!

Originally Posted by scastle

In answer to everyone else: Have you ever taped anything from the Radio or TV because, although tolerated, I think that is still counted as theft?

There is provision in the act for personal limited time use of VCRs for taping stuff of the TV. I can't remember how long you're allowed to keep them for now, it's either 30 days or 90 days - something like that.

Originally Posted by scastle

Actually, I looked up the copyright act a while back, and as I understand it, but downloading music isn't actually considered theft, but is considered to be recieving stolen goods. It's still illegal, so I am just being picky.

You may be right, but I have never heard of this. Whilst counterfeiting is a criminal offence, copyright infringement is a civil offence - downloading music from unuthorised sources is infringement of copyright - and would leave you open to being sued by the IFPI or BPI, as well as MCPS (MCPS handles the mechanical copyright on behalf of the music publishers).

[Stuart C]

andygrif, what you say is true. However it is described, and even if it is morally right (debatable, but the position some posters here seem to be adopting), downloading copyrighted material via unauthorised sources IS illegal, so anyone who does it is laying themselves open to legal action.

I would be interested to know if there is actually *proof* not just statements by the RIAA (who seem to be busy telling everyone that if users are free to do what they want with PCs the whole of America will go bankrupt) that p2p downloads have actually harmed sales . I have seen an article online (which I can't currently find the link for) that says this is not the case (CD sales in 2002 were almost the same as 1992).

I have to admit, I personally don't download from file sharing networks now (I did in the past). Partly because it was to much hassle (I don't like waiting three days for something to download only to find it is the wrong file), but mostly, because (and this is either going to sound arrogant or holier than thou, either way, I apologise) I do believe that the artists should be rewarded for their work.

Well way I see it is: the more and more people who download illegally the artists may be rich they have a guranteed percentage but I belive its the companys who are feeling the pinch, I agree with sites like the new napster pay to use but works out cheaper for a entire album


I mean I heard of people being jailed and fined over £1000 for illegally downloading MP3 and software files, and with cost of 1 Internet connection 2 CD-r to burn ur music onto 3 Printer ( inc cart's ) to print out covers 4 cd box and 5 ur personal time and trouble finding the tracks, it will add up to more stress and similar cost give or take 2-3 quid.

I think its easier to either pay for a single track online, or just buy the album and support the few good artists we have left.

Originally Posted by Bifta

Not that I know of in this country, but, anyone with more than a couple of braincells (I'll exclude you from that list if you like) knows that it won't be long.

So, ignoring the gratuitous personal ad hominem attack, the actual answer to the question is "no".

Here's an interesting article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3545839.stm

"The European Parliament has passed an anti-piracy law, covering everything from handbags to music downloads. [...]

"The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal."

Hmm, would it be cynical to suggest a conflict of interests??

Also: "In November, the EU copyright directive came into force in the UK which put many things people are used to doing with music, such as copying tracks to an MP3 player, fell into a legal grey area."

Should you have to buy the music every time you want to use it on a different playing system?

[kronas]

Originally Posted by andygrif

It is nothing to do with me getting my way. I work in the music business, I know what goes into the production of the music, some of which by your own admission you have downloaded, some of those you don't also own on CD. If everyone did what you did - there would be no mainstream releases - period.

i know about the production time the effort, the mixing, the directing of music, the hours of time spent building a good sounding track, the hours spent creating the lyrics, getting them in song with the artist, manafacturing etc.

so what if music is downloaded, i already publicly stated if you download and dont buy then its wrong.

if i decide to listen to a whole album then go out and buy it i see no problem with that.

Originally Posted by andygrif

iTunes Music Store is a FREE program, it's also a great way of keeping digital copies of the music you own. You do not have to put in any personal information whatsoever to hear quality previews of nearly 3/4 million songs.

Also Amazon offers tens of thousands of tracks for preview.

Also you can walk into ANY Virgin Megastore, walk up to the counter with any CD in the store and they will put it on a listening post for you.

previewing tracks is futile you cannot get a grasp of what the song sounds like properly lyrically and the music as well as instrumentals....

not every track is previewable.

i dont have a virgin megastore here.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Whilst it may not be as morally wrong to download a track illegally then go and buy it - firstly it is still under copyright laws a breach of copyright. Second, why do you keep the inferior digital files you downloaded if you've bought the CD?

who said i did, personally i have deleted them, although because i want to keep the CD's in pritsine condition i have taken the step of ripping them from CD to a file so i can hear it when i want, keep the CD in excellent condition.

Originally Posted by andygrif

The rules of the game are simple - you're not allowed to download unauthorised copies of music, videos, books, artistic work, whatever - however you try to justify your actions you're in breach of copyright. Peer to peer systems are not the way to find new music, and you do not have any rights whatsoever to download music from such sources, even going on to buy the album later is no justification under the laws of copyright. And let me remind you that the rules on copyright are governed by the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act (I think I have got them in the right order) and not the RIAA, which isn't even based in this country.

hot air.

Originally Posted by andygrif

There is provision in the act for personal limited time use of VCRs for taping stuff of the TV. I can't remember how long you're allowed to keep them for now, it's either 30 days or 90 days - something like that.

and your telling me everyone else does that ? your telling me you have done that

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by scastle

andygrif, what you say is true. However it is described, and even if it is morally right (debatable, but the position some posters here seem to be adopting), downloading copyrighted material via unauthorised sources IS illegal, so anyone who does it is laying themselves open to legal action.

As far as I know a recording group or company could invoke a writ which is granted by a court, would technically the Police could come round and seize your equipment and any infringing copies, but not something you could be arrested for (unless you're counterfeiting) - but I might be wrong on this, so will bow to your knowledge of the subject.

Originally Posted by scastle

I would be interested to know if there is actually *proof* not just statements by the RIAA (who seem to be busy telling everyone that if users are free to do what they want with PCs the whole of America will go bankrupt) that p2p downloads have actually harmed sales . I have seen an article online (which I can't currently find the link for) that says this is not the case (CD sales in 2002 were almost the same as 1992)..

This is a moot point, I agree. There is evidence as I eluded to earlier in this thread that P2P'ers in general buy more music than non P2P'ers. There is also research that says this is not the case - as ever, it's all in who you ask and the questions you ask them I guess. As a matter of fact, there were more albums sold in the UK in 2003 than ever before - but single sales were down. This is not the case, however, in most other markets, particularly Asia which has a P2P culture that is, for want of a better word, rampant.

Originally Posted by Graham

Hmm, would it be cynical to suggest a conflict of interests??

I think it is a little, especially as Vivendi were one of the first groups to see the marketing opportunities in P2P networks - but I take your point. As mentioned earlier, unlike in the US, the EU Copyright Directive has urged leniency for fair use of such systems - which overall I would agree with.

Originally Posted by kronas

i know about the production time the effort, the mixing, the directing of music, the hours of time spent building a good sounding track, the hours spent creating the lyrics, getting them in song with the artist, manafacturing etc.

And the rest! The millions spent on marketing, logistics, retailers' margins, royalties for composers and performers.... When you download a track you are not just hitting the music company, you're affecting the guy who works behind the counter in HMV, the guys in manufacturing plants, the suppliers of the manufacturing plant, the guys who drive the CDs to the stores, and so on. They say there is no such thing as a victimless crime, and they are right.

Your problem is that you do not see the bigger picture. All you see is Kronas downloading the odd track now and then. But there are millions of Kronases around the world, and it naive to suggest that these lost Pounds have no effect. You are also, by using things like Kazaa, putting the money in someone elses pocket (the people who make the software, advertising etc) who are then denying the same people who are due it, any such payment for you ripping off their work.

Originally Posted by kronas

so what if music is downloaded, i already publicly stated if you download and dont buy then its wrong.

You've also said that you have done just that.

Originally Posted by kronas

i dont have a virgin megastore here.

Pedant.

Originally Posted by kronas

hot air.

Fact. I don't make the rules, I'm only telling you what they are. The laws are made through the normal governmental process. If you don't like them complain to your MP.

Originally Posted by kronas

and your telling me everyone else does that ? your telling me you have done that

No, I'm telling what the law says. Are you an anarchist?

I've already said that it might not be as morally wrong to download music you would buy. I have already said that P2P can be a marketing device (in fact there is now a very good legal one for music, and many more designed for remote business working). But I am only reporting the rules, you choose what to do with them at your own risk. Just like I know what the speed limit on the motorway is, and if I choose to exceed it then I know I might get nicked. Simple.

What I don't like is people who try to justify their actions with lame arguments - you're breaching someone's copyright, however you might dress it up. It doesn't matter whether you buy the album in the end or not in the eyes of the law.

At least be man enough to say what you do without trying to make excuses for your actions - I'd have some respect for that.

By the way, the BPI are at your front door now

[kronas]

Originally Posted by andygrif

And the rest! The millions spent on marketing, logistics, retailers' margins, royalties for composers and performers.... When you download a track you are not just hitting the music company, you're affecting the guy who works behind the counter in HMV, the guys in manufacturing plants, the suppliers of the manufacturing plant, the guys who drive the CDs to the stores, and so on. They say there is no such thing as a victimless crime, and they are right.

im well aware of that.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Your problem is that you do not see the bigger picture.

i do

Originally Posted by andygrif

All you see is Kronas downloading the odd track now and then. But there are millions of Kronases around the world, and it naive to suggest that these lost Pounds have no effect. You are also, by using things like Kazaa, putting the money in someone elses pocket (the people who make the software, advertising etc) who are then denying the same people who are due it, any such payment for you ripping off their work.

now if im downloading a track/album i like it then go and buy it, although others download purely because its free, that is wrong, what more do you want me to say!!!!

Originally Posted by andygrif

You've also said that you have done just that.

when have i done that, read my replys

Originally Posted by andygrif

Pedant.

nowhere around me or indeed the virgin megastore in the next town has a kiosk to listen to albums.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Fact. I don't make the rules, I'm only telling you what they are. The laws are made through the normal governmental process. If you don't like them complain to your MP.

the likes of the RIAA put pressure on the governments with lies, what about CD sales now eh ? they are going to fall do you know why ? more people are downloading through legitimate sources, ofcourse there is no accurate way to measure CD sales decreases as of now because of this.

Originally Posted by andygrif

No, I'm telling what the law says. Are you an anarchist?

fair do's im aware of what the laws are as to your second question no!

Originally Posted by andygrif

I've already said that it might not be as morally wrong to download music you would buy.

i said buying the CD after you have heard all of the tracks and are happy is ok.

Originally Posted by andygrif

I have already said that P2P can be a marketing device (in fact there is now a very good legal one for music, and many more designed for remote business working). But I am only reporting the rules, you choose what to do with them at your own risk. Just like I know what the speed limit on the motorway is, and if I choose to exceed it then I know I might get nicked. Simple.

this is not a motorway, this is about breaching the rules, the laws, some which are pushed in to government to appease media giants.

Originally Posted by andygrif

What I don't like is people who try to justify their actions with lame arguments - you're breaching someone's copyright. It doesn't matter whether you buy the album in the end or not.

according to the law yes, but there are plenty of unfair laws, if they try and play hardball sales will go down further.

Originally Posted by andygrif

At least be man enough to say what you do without trying to make excuses for your actions - I'd have some respect for that.

i didnt make excuses just put forward my opinion and moral thinking.

Originally Posted by andygrif

By the way, the BPI are at your front door now

i was wondering what that knocking was

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by andygrif

As far as I know a recording group or company could invoke a writ which is granted by a court, would technically the Police could come round and seize your equipment and any infringing copies, but not something you could be arrested for (unless you're counterfeiting) - but I might be wrong on this, so will bow to your knowledge of the subject.

Actually, I was trying to make the point that, however you look at it, downloading copyrighted music from unauthorised sources is illegal. Obviously, you are saying the same thing, so we do agree.

You've possibly got more knowledge of it than I, I am not a lawyer, just have read through the Copyright Act (sad, I know).

This is a moot point, I agree. There is evidence as I eluded to earlier in this thread that P2P'ers in general buy more music than non P2P'ers. There is also research that says this is not the case - as ever, it's all in who you ask and the questions you ask them I guess. As a matter of fact, there were more albums sold in the UK in 2003 than ever before - but single sales were down. This is not the case, however, in most other markets, particularly Asia which has a P2P culture that is, for want of a better word, rampant.

Asia had a massive piracy problem before P2P was even invented. I think this is as much to do with the various governments previous, slightly more relaxed attitude to piracy as P2P. Not that I am saying P2P is entirely blameless (I don't think it is).

IIRC single sales have actually been dropping since around the late 80s.

There are other possible reasons for the downturn, that the record industry seems to largely ignoring (maybe they are not, but they appear to be):

The worldwide economic climate: Throughout the nineties, various parts of the world (us and the states included) were bouncing in and out of recession. This could cause a drop in sales as, in a recession, people tend not to buy luxury items, and albums and singles tend to be regarded as luxuries.

Manufactured music and endless Oasis/Blur/Radiohead clones: There seems to be very little original music played on the radio and television now. The record companies only really seem interested in plugging the latest manufactured band. Even their attempts at plugging the bands seem formularised (form new band of 5 members, male or female, cover old classic song, create a video with a lot of computer graphics & put them on TV, then arrange a tour). Although some these bands are actually good, in general, I think people are getting bored with them.

It's also possible that the number of compilation albums is affecting single sales. Why spend £3.99 on one single with maybe three or four tracks (usually remixes) when you can spend £15 and get 30-40 of them..

In short, I believe that P2P sharing is one problem for the record companies. I don't believe its the only one (or even the main one) though.

@kronas: Kronas, where do you buy your albums? If it's a small independant record store, you may be able to persuade them to buy a cheap CD player and headphones to allow you to sample tracks.

[andygrif]

Well done for admitting your crime Kronas!! By the way to be recipricolly pedantic your nearest Virgin Megastore is less than 10 miles away!

Scastle, agree about Asia - there is a different mentality to piracy over there, like the endless counterfeit VCDs and now DVDs that stem from Hong Kong and the like.

I would also agree about pricing. I've said a lot that now that the cost of albums has dropped, people will buy less singles. Also with the Now and Hits series of albums, you're often getting new releases that way - which is a far cheaper way of getting your music. The record companies are partly to blme for this - they experienced less single sales, so looked to compiltions as a way of marketing their new releases. This means that people will be even less singles, and it becomes a vicious circle. You can get to No.1 in the singles chart with less than 30,000 sales now - that's 0.05% of the popultion buying a copy!

I have no idea why anyone would pay nearly 4 quid for a CD single. In my opinion singles should be releases with one song or several versions of one song (no more B sides) for 99p. This would stimulate the kids into buying more singles.

I also completely agree with you about peer to peer not being the only problem. They are putting more emphasis on it than I believe they should be - there is no doubt that organised music piracy, in the form of counterfeit goods, is far more serious in terms of monetary cost to the labels, but there are a lot more casual P2P downloaders, and they are easier to find than organised gangs that often operate in other countries.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Well done for admitting your crime Kronas!! By the way to be recipricolly pedantic your nearest Virgin Megastore is less than 10 miles away!

Bradford, just over 5 miles away

Originally Posted by andygrif

There is provision in the act for personal limited time use of VCRs for taping stuff of the TV. I can't remember how long you're allowed to keep them for now, it's either 30 days or 90 days - something like that.

I missed this the first time through, but I just *had* to comment!

How many people are a) aware of this and b) even if they were, would take *any* notice of it?

Has anyone *ever* been charged with an offence under this provision?

Should I (and probably practically everyone who owns a video recorder) go through my tape collections and delete 90% of the contents because it was recorded more than 90 days ago??

Somehow I don't think so...

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Graham

I missed this the first time through, but I just *had* to comment!

How many people are a) aware of this and b) even if they were, would take *any* notice of it?

Has anyone *ever* been charged with an offence under this provision?

Should I (and probably practically everyone who owns a video recorder) go through my tape collections and delete 90% of the contents because it was recorded more than 90 days ago??

Somehow I don't think so...

No I doubt most people are aware of it, and of course it's pretty unlikely anyone has been prosecuted with doing it - again it's down to fair use and whilst the rules have to be made, I would doubt anyone like the BBC would be overly worried about it - but they retain the right to the copyright and could seize the infringing articles if they so desired....who's that at your door Graham?

Originally Posted by andygrif

No I doubt most people are aware of it, and of course it's pretty unlikely anyone has been prosecuted with doing it - again it's down to fair use and whilst the rules have to be made, I would doubt anyone like the BBC would be overly worried about it - but they retain the right to the copyright and could seize the infringing articles if they so desired....who's that at your door Graham?

Someone who wants to waste a large amount of public time and money persecuting, sorry, *prosecuting* people for trivial offences.

[andygrif]

Well you could look at it this way - I would not expect that the BBC would prosecute someone (through the courts of course) for retaining your favourite episode of Only Fools and Horses on VHS - the main reason being that you've already paid for it through the license fee.

Elsewhere I was shot down in flames for suggesting that file sharers should pay a 'license fee' for the right to download music - it would be a far better option than penalising legitimate music buyers by limiting their choice of where to play music.

Whilst this may work in principle, I don't think it is the best solution, becuase in doing so you make music into a commodity, which is exactly what file sharers do - and we should be trying to extole the virtues of choice and creativity - and paying accordingly.