Disgusting !

[Jet]

Actually all their study showed was that popular tracks were the most pirated. No **** sherlock!

That's not the main conclusion they made.

That also ignores the fact that the study is based on a model they created, whilst models created by other staticians show that it does have an effect (by their own admission I must add).

That was the point I made. There is no proof that music sales are affected. There are studies on both sides of the argument.

A lot of signed bands offer the music for free on myspace, their own websites and other sites, but the fact is they're only making money through selling their stuff through music publishers.

Obviously free downloading will not make money on it's own. But how do they get a record contract, how do they get fans, how do they get publicity?

Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen both showed that giving away music or making it available to listen to for free creates the publicity needed to make money from sales of the music.

Do you think if Lily Allen had charged £1 per track she's be famous now? I highly doubt it.

What's the difference between the Lily Allen scenario and me downloading an album illegally, deciding I like it, then buying it? One was legal, one is illegal and both have the same outcome.

 

[Jet]

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what music sales would be like if it weren't possible to illegally download music. If sales have not declined due to illegal downloading, would they have risen otherwise? Would they have fallen and downloading is having a positive effect? Or are all the people who are downloading really those people who wouldn't have bought the music anyway and so sales are completely unaffected?

The record industry seems to believe the first is true, which is naive in the extreme. In reality, there will be a little of each model present plus other factors that mean it's a very complex subject. What really matters is how the music industry reacts, and my view is that they're going about it in entirely the wrong way.

I wasn't saying the above study was correct. Merely that there is no consensus.

I agree with your post.

 

[mattyfez]

Depends really, that's why I'm kinda against the ambiguous polls. If it's just torrenting loads of music then it's bad, if it's a limited number of tracks to perk an interest then fine.

Hey, thats cheating, one track may aswell be a 60GB collection, its the principal.....

 

[snowdog]

On a sidenote, Piracy isn't just of this time, my dad copied tens of casettes of music from all people he knew, basicly everyone he knew shared music with him and vice versa, piracy is a thing of all times, before internet people just copied cd's, copied vhs's, copied casettes/tapes of music, floppy's, etc...

 

[Tefal]

, I don't think the use of cannabis should be allowed, I have however smoked it on one occasion that I can remember.

why have you not gone and turned your self in then?

and a yes or no question have you pirated something is not ambiguous. Also by the RIAA's reckoning you cost them a sale by possibly downloading tracks then finding you didn't like them and not buying the album, where as you should have bought it then found out.

there was an artical on dailytech recently which showed just how insane the riaa was getting, they issued a cease and desist order to a guy because he played his ipod loud enough to be heard by coworkers in a a garage :/

 

[Jokester]

That's not the main conclusion they made.

It might not be the conclusion they made, doesn't mean it is right for the reason xyphic and I have given. 1 study doesn't mean it's right, especially when it ignores numerous other studies that show that it does have an effect. MMR anyone?

Obviously free downloading will not make money on it's own. But how do they get a record contract, how do they get fans, how do they get publicity?

Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen both showed that giving away music or making it available to listen to for free creates the publicity needed to make money from sales of the music.

Do you think if Lily Allen had charged £1 per track she's be famous now? I highly doubt it.

Which is precisely my point. Without the backing of record companies these bands, including Radiohead, won't be anywhere near so successful and making a living out of it.

What's the difference between the Lily Allen scenario and me downloading an album illegally, deciding I like it, then buying it? One was legal, one is illegal and both have the same outcome.

Not much, but what about the case where people don't buy it but continue to use it?

 

[Inquisitor]

If you combine figures from the RIAA, MPAA and BSA non-commercial unauthorised digital reproduction was equal in lost sales to the GDP of Bangladesh last year.

Hardly a reliable or unbiased source, though.

 

[mattyfez]

no.

no its not cheating, or no you have never pirated anything?

 

[Jet]

It might not be the conclusion they made, doesn't mean it is right for the reason xyphic and I have given. 1 study doesn't mean it's right, especially when it ignores numerous other studies that show that it does have an effect. MMR anyone?

I didn't say it was right. I've made the point twice now. The fact that there is no proof or consensus is why I don't believe them. I'm not saying they're wrong, but i don't agree with suing kids on an assumption.

The record companies seem to work out how much CD sales have decreased and then blame the £800 million lost on illegal downloading which is ridiculous.

Which is precisely my point. Without the backing of record companies these bands, including Radiohead, won't be anywhere near so successful and making a living out of it.

Record companies and downloading can live in perfect harmony, they aren't mutually exclusive. Arctic Monkeys wouldn't have got as big as they are without free downloads. At no point have I said record companies should not exist.

And Arctic Monkeys would arguably have been just as successful without a record deal. They already had huge publicity and a massive fan base before they signed.

Not much, but what about the case where people don't buy it but continue to use it?

Would they have bought it if illegal downloading was impossible?

The point is that there is a range of possibilities. Some will cancel each other out. Yet the stance of the record companies is to sue everyone no matter what.

I find most of my music from illegal sources (youtube mostly) yet I own all the music I listen to on CD. Without illegal sources I wouldn't own most of it and wouldn't even be aware of most of the artists I like. Nor would I have gone to their concerts or bought merchandise.

Yet if I caught I will be sued. Ridiculous.

 

[Macro]

so on a poll saying is it acceptable yes or no, you would have to say yes?

It's not a very well worded poll though if you are trying to get to a honest view of piracy and how acceptable it is to society.

There's a world of difference between someone who copied a track off of a friends CD once and then went and bought the album and people that rip off tens of CDs, films and software a week, rarely if ever actually buying anything. Your question would lump them all together

A better question would be "do you pirate software/video & music on a regular basis". I'd be interested to know how many regular "casual" (as in they don't rip stuff off to sell) pirates would stop if they thought there was a realistic chance of them being caught and prosecuted.

 

[mattyfez]

@moses...

 

[Jokester]

Yet if I caught I will be sued. Ridiculous.

But why is it ridiculous? You're making use of someones hard work and they're not being compensated for it.

 

[Tefal]

There's a world of difference between someone who copied a track off of a friends CD once and then went and bought the album and people that rip off tens of CDs, films and software a week, rarely if ever actually buying anything. Your question would lump them all together
.

both of them committed a crime. both are pirates. both would be punished if the RIAA had it's way.

 

[Tefal]

There's a difference between having one track you obtained illegally and having massive collections of illegally downloaded stuff. As Athanor pointed out really.



Ambiguous because it's not such a clear cut issue imo. As Athanor mentioned, there are lots of different people in the "I have pirated before" bracket

In the eyes of the law there is not, and if you have dl'ed one track then surly you find it acceptable to do so, otherwise you wouldn't have done it. it's not like you where forced against your will.

As it was compared to stealing before, are you now saying it's ok to steal just only small amounts.

 

[mattyfez]

There's a difference between having one track you obtained illegally and having massive collections of illegally downloaded stuff. As Athanor pointed out really.

....maybe in terms of prison time, but both broke the law, and both "stole" somthing that wasn't thiers....

you have joined the dark side of the force, you just dont know it yet

 

[Tefal]

That's what I mean by the ambiguity in different polls. Under certain circumstances it's all good, but loads of people don't just illegally download one or two tracks every so often, they download whole albums constantly.

so your saying it would be ok to "steal but only occasionally?

 

[KNiVES]

If you can't afford it, don't buy it or steal it. It's that simple to be honest.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The only game I played to death was called Kick Off 2 on the Atari ST, it was a copy and I did sometimes feel bad about it because of the hammering I gave it.
One year I was at a software fair and the guy who wrote Kick Off 2 was standing there.
I asked him if he was definitely the writer, told him that if I'd bought the original game he might have got 50p and promptly gave him a tenner for a few drinks.
He was gobsmacked and I felt a lot better.

 

[fini]

Hardly a reliable or unbiased source, though.

Completely agree - but it's a figure none-the-less. All the organisations are also pretty fair in how they arrive at their figures aswell IMHO - they don't class one pirate as one loss of sale (IIRC it's worked out on 1 in 10).

 

[Tefal]

That's not the same as people that download vast quantities of music illegally, loads of albums.

Try telling that to the judge


Strange how you avoided the question do you think it's right to steal if you only do it occasionally?


Also epic lolage @ the fact the anti piracy poster is now defending casually piracy, and I'm having a go at it >.>