UK 'pirates' face £20 appeal fee

InKursion said:
I said in my original post that it was to do with technological innovation, yes. But certain formats - regardless of medium - like the EP/single are dying out because they are no longer viable, due to piracy as a major reason.
Click to expand...

Again, piracy is not the reason and if it were why would it kill off single sales and not album sales given both are just as easy to download?

Nothing is 'killing off' single sales, it's just a case of an over saturated market. Because of iTunes and digital delivery it's now possible to write, record and release a single very quickly, there's not time lost due to large scale CD production and artists can now release almost their entire albums individually as singles weeks apart. Traditionally you'd be lucky to get more than 2 tracks from any given album released as singles before.

I would bet the sheer number of singles released last year would dwarf the number released in say 1991 for example.

But even so, Adele's "Someone Like You" shifted 1.2 million copies last year, a number which hasn't been seen since Britney Spears' "Hit Me Baby One More Time" back in '99 and between those the lowest selling single each year has never dropped below 800k units. So once, again the numbers don't really back up your assertion.

InKursion said:
Not the greatest of shames in my personal opinion - I'm a fan of dance music so I still buy singles to DJ with - but it's an example that piracy culture is affecting the music industry, not always in positive ways. Heaven forbid the album format be destroyed by the mp3/Spotify playlist generation.
Click to expand...

And as a former DJ myself I hated seeing my vinyl collection becoming obsolete as more and more of my peers were switching to CD mixing and then MP3 mixers, but I didn't whine or blame it on piracy. I just accepted it's how the music world was advancing at the time.

When I see videos now of people like David Guetta playing without a Technics 1210 in sight I too 'miss' the old days, but stop blaming this natural evolution on a few kids downloading an old Public Enemy album from Kazaa.

InKursion said:
Plus, you said CD's are not any cheaper. They patently are cheaper, in real monetary and marketed senses.
Click to expand...

The point being that price drop has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with the likes of Amazon and it being a dying format.
 
InKursion said:
but it's an example that piracy culture is affecting the music industry, not always in positive ways..
Click to expand...

That about sums it up it - affects the music industry. The music industry itself affects the artists with onerous contracts etc. Strangely enough I care about the artists not the corporate behemoths that hold them to ransom whether they by EMI, EA etc
 
Xordium said:
That about sums it up it - affects the music industry. The music industry itself affects the artists with onerous contracts etc. Strangely enough I care about the artists not the corporate behemoths that hold them to ransom whether they by EMI, EA etc
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who did a degree in music and entertainment management once told me that 'S Club 7' never made any actual money themselves from their songs. Basically the way it worked was whilst they were on the label they got everything paid for them (clothes, fancy hotels, nice restaurants etc) by the label but as soon as they were dropped they were all left with nothing financially.

It's like when they say X has been given a £1 million recording contract. That doesn't mean they are being paid a million for making an album, it means they are given that money to make, record and promote that album. It's a budget not a salary.

After having been told how the music industry actually works, I'm not sure if people like InKursion would be so keen to protect it.
 
Last edited:
InKursion said:
This sort of logic is bandied about a lot... and to some extent, yes, I agree, it is a grey area of potential/doubtful purchase. This is where copyright infringement has a unique nature of its own, quite different from stealing (i.e. removing a physical copy) but then not yet always replicating and 'losing a chance' of purchase (because many people wouldn't have ever purchased it, anyway). What I will say though is that, for every guy that innocently downloads something he doesn't have much interest in, there are 10 that are huge fans of the show/series/film and would definitely have had to buy the DVD or go to the cinema or whatever, otherwise. People hide behind this "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" catch-all, which would be convincing if they were talking about the complete works of a 1950's jazz musician when they have no previous interest in jazz, but is less convicing when it's the latest 'must see' television series.

It's hard to form analogies because digital copyright infringement doesn't involve the 'taking' of anything per se, but the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse is a bit like trying to walk out of a clothes-store with a bunch of swiped clothing that you put on in the changing rooms, getting caught, and then saying "but I never would have paid for this clothes anyway, they're not to my taste". You are still in some way - however the technicalities of the process deem it - 'taking' something without giving any money to the people behind it.
Click to expand...

Your only looking at one dimension of it tho - there are a lot of people who can't afford to buy the stuff they are pirating, people who only pirate something out of curiosity and otherwise wouldn't have bought it to even see if they were interested and people who have absolutely no intention of paying and half a dozen other scenarios so your a long way from equating illegally downloaded copies to lost sales.

Between itunes, spotify, beatport and a couple of other sites you can get hold of most music released these days legally and for the most part at not too bad prices so I have less sympathy for people pirating music these days most are just freeloaders... movies, tv shows, e-books, etc. tho are still very limited on legal availability, pricing, etc.
 
Last edited:
InKursion said:
What I will say though is that, for every guy that innocently downloads something he doesn't have much interest in, there are 10 that are huge fans of the show/series/film and would definitely have had to buy the DVD or go to the cinema or whatever, otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually it's more likely to be the other way around. A huge fan of the show is going to be far more likely to pay anyway, due to being a fan. It's the 10 others who aren't that bothered (and so wouldn't have bought/watched/etc anyway) who are more likely to download.

You're also conveniently forgetting the people who aren't that interested, but download anyway and subsequently become huge fans and then spend money on the product (that they weren't interested in/wouldn't have spent money on before).
 
InKursion said:
It's hard to form analogies because digital copyright infringement doesn't involve the 'taking' of anything per se, but the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse is a bit like trying to walk out of a clothes-store with a bunch of swiped clothing that you put on in the changing rooms, getting caught, and then saying "but I never would have paid for this clothes anyway, they're not to my taste".
Click to expand...

Not it's not like that at all.

A better example would be going into a clothes store, grabbing some stuff and taking them to the changing rooms, trying them on and then taking a picture of yourself wearing the garments before returning them to their hangers and walking out with the photo of what you looked like wearing them.
 
estebanrey said:
Not it's not like that at all.

A better example would be going into a clothes store, grabbing some stuff and taking them to the changing rooms, trying them on and then taking a picture of yourself wearing the garments before returning them to their hangers and walking out with the photo of what you looked like wearing them.
Click to expand...

And then going home and making your own clothes.
 
The government has more chance of winning the Afghan, Iraq, Iran and Israel-Palestinian situations than it ever has of winning the drug war.
 
InKursion said:
Very wise posts by Nexus, I agree completely. Advertising is annoying but it's a necessary evil for the industry. People that say "nonsense" and assume that these TV shows will be made forever with no consequence of them streaming them are extremely naive. You are just being morally lazy because there is no immediate consequence for you, it's that simple. I'm tired of pirates being in denial about what they do, or clouding it with some pointless tech-utopianism or aimless teenage anti-corporate rubbish. Be a responsible and mature consumer of culture! Pay the artists and writers!
Click to expand...

Without quoting multiple posts regarding advertising.

We go to the cinema and we pay to view the film so why should there be more adverts? We go and buy a blu-ray / dvd and yet subjected to more adverts. Where's the Bought DVD vs Pirate DVD jpeg as that analogy is absolutely spot on.

The overall thought is why should you purchase a sub standard product when you can get a better product. I'm sure, if there was an option where by you could by the standard dvd or a streamlined dvd whereby there were no adverts or trailers or stupid 'don't copy this dvd' slides I know which would sell more.


M.
 
m4cc45 said:
Without quoting multiple posts regarding advertising.

We go to the cinema and we pay to view the film so why should there be more adverts? We go and buy a blu-ray / dvd and yet subjected to more adverts. Where's the Bought DVD vs Pirate DVD jpeg as that analogy is absolutely spot on.

The overall thought is why should you purchase a sub standard product when you can get a better product. I'm sure, if there was an option where by you could by the standard dvd or a streamlined dvd whereby there were no adverts or trailers or stupid 'don't copy this dvd' slides I know which would sell more.


M.
Click to expand...

It might be annoying, but its just another poor whinge from pirates who aren't attempting to justify that its alright to take something without paying because of it.
 
LordSplodge said:
Whilst his posts are sensible the bias caused by him working in the creative/media industry is somewhat obvious.
Click to expand...

So therefore my opinion isn't valid?
You don't have to work in creative industries to be against piracy, many other people share that view.

I happen to work Freelance, I'm not tied to any particular corporation or studio. My view is simply that I think piracy is wrong and that I have no issue with them attempting to crack down on it. What I don't agree with is people who defend piracy and come up with a million silly reasons why its 'morally' alright for them to do so. Why can't people just put their hand up and say:

"Yeah, its a fair cop, we had a good innings being able to freely download, but they are blocking access to torrent sites and such, so its making it harder".

Instead the response is things like:

"This is a breach of my human rights, they will be restricting everything we do soon, I'd be be better off in China!"
 
Nexus said:
My view is simply that I think piracy is wrong and that I have no issue with them attempting to crack down on it.
Click to expand...

I agree but this thread isn't about 'piracy' it's about copyright infringement. Piracy is making copies of something copyrighted and then profiting from it, by selling them or using them for your business.

People downloading things off torrent sites for their own enjoyment are not pirates, no matter how much you and your 'creative arts' buddies are trying to change the meaning of the word because it sounds worse than 'copyright infringer'. It's a simple propaganda tactic essentially.

The fact is, the people who are creating the arts are still being paid for their work, because their pay has never come from sales figures. It's the media management companies and agencies who are losing out so when you talk about 'paying people for their work' your actually talking about you and your cohorts, not the artists.

I can take a photo of the Mona Lisa and not be sued for copyright (although it wouldn't surprise me if you actually could) so why is taking a digital copy of another form of art different?

And whilst we're at it, the biggest pirates are the industry themselves, constantly stealing other artists work for their singles and not credited or paying the original artist. Leona Lewis' last single used an exact sample from Avicci's Penguin and Syco tried to not even credit the guy. Jessie J is currently being sued by some American 90s rock band over Domino and I can't remember the last time Coldplay have released a single that wasn't accused of plagiarism. Christ Martin's excuse is always the same, he was 'inspired' by the original. Well Chris, maybe I didn't steal your last album off the TPB, it just appeared on my hard drive out of 'inspiration'.*

* I actually don't have his album on the account that Coldplay are ****.
 
Last edited:
they should spend less time trying to catch the pirates and more time making a product people will want to actually buy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom