UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by bucketbakereturn

True but is it anywhere near the actual cost... music is just data these days so what is being paid for, who needs to get paid, are we just facilitating old business models and contract agreements cause no one has thought of a better one??

Music is just data? Think about it and you will see it's a lot more than that. What is involved in getting that data?

[bucketbakereturn]

i really don't appreciate that tone.....

My point remains the same are we being forced to pay for old business models and contractual agreements.

Yes the artists needs paid, yes the 'tech support' for want of a better phrase, for the artists need paid, but after that won't the internet do the rest, news, biog, promotion, viral ad, band sites, mesage boards ( i mean aren't the best bands/albums word of mouth) etc. Though touring can be loss leading they can also be profitable, not the best example but Rolling Stones anyone.

And still the internet remains as another completely different environment, populated by people who are free to act as they wish - legislate that when no-one wants to try.

[ian@huth]

This thread was not really meant to be about the rights and wrongs of filesharing. Rather it was meant to be a warning that filesharing can hit you hard in the pocket. There are a lot of people who think that just downloading a few music tracks is acceptable and perfectly legal and it is only uploading that is an offence. This is not the case so be warned.

[bucketbakereturn]

noted.......................

Originally Posted by ian@huth

This thread was not really meant to be about the rights and wrongs of filesharing. Rather it was meant to be a warning that filesharing can hit you hard in the pocket. There are a lot of people who think that just downloading a few music tracks is acceptable and perfectly legal and it is only uploading that is an offence. This is not the case so be warned.

To be fair I think we were already well aware of that but with millions in the UK downloading illegally the industry needs to reconsider its tactics. I am a heavy purchaser of music but also download (like I used to tape my mates records in the good old days). Suing me and people like me might well be counter productive.

Originally Posted by andyl

To be fair I think we were already well aware of that but with millions in the UK downloading illegally the industry needs to reconsider its tactics. I am a heavy purchaser of music but also download (like I used to tape my mates records in the good old days). Suing me and people like me might well be counter productive.

In what way could it be counterproductive?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by bucketbakereturn

i really don't appreciate that tone.....

My point remains the same are we being forced to pay for old business models and contractual agreements.

Yes the artists needs paid, yes the 'tech support' for want of a better phrase, for the artists need paid, but after that won't the internet do the rest, news, biog, promotion, viral ad, band sites, mesage boards ( i mean aren't the best bands/albums word of mouth) etc. Though touring can be loss leading they can also be profitable, not the best example but Rolling Stones anyone.

And still the internet remains as another completely different environment, populated by people who are free to act as they wish - legislate that when no-one wants to try.

What was wrong with the tone?

You have to remember that not everyone has internet access, in fact most people don't. Music still has to be made available for the ones that don't. The internet is but one method of distributing music but that method should still bear its share of the costs.

Originally Posted by Chris T

In what way could it be counterproductive?

If they skin me for £2.5k that's a lot less in my coffers to spend on Play.... and antagonising your best customers is never advisable.
__________________

Originally Posted by ian@huth

You have to remember that not everyone has internet access, in fact most people don't. Music still has to be made available for the ones that don't. The internet is but one method of distributing music but that method should still bear its share of the costs.

True but the majority of homes do. Nearly 60% of UK households now have internet access (Sept 04 figs - virtually double 2002 figs). The industry has been widely condemned for failing to keep technological pace - if it had launched low cost downloads early it could have at least stifled illegal download sites. It is also a terribly inefficient and conservative industry, still largely signing 'me too' acts and having a mud-at-wall approach to A&R (which probably hurts more artists as they get unceremoniously dropped).

Originally Posted by andyl

If they skin me for £2.5k that's a lot less in my coffers to spend on Play.... and antagonising your best customers is never advisable.

But if they skin you for £2.5k, that's money you already owe them for their property which you acquired dishonestly. That's a bit like me telling one of my suppliers, 'if you make me pay that invoice, I'll have less money to spend with you in future!'

Originally Posted by Chris T

But if they skin you for £2.5k, that's money you already owe them for their property which you acquired dishonestly. That's a bit like me telling one of my suppliers, 'if you make me pay that invoice, I'll have less money to spend with you in future!'

Yes but I spend much, much more than the average consumer on CDs and often use download sites to taste songs to determine whether to by an LP or not. In a way, download sites are an effective marketing tool for the industry.

Originally Posted by andyl

Yes but I spend much, much more than the average consumer on CDs and often use download sites to taste songs to determine whether to by an LP or not. In a way, download sites are an effective marketing tool for the industry.

But iTunes lets you do that, legally. I expect other legal music download services do as well. Back in the old days, there was a certain amount of justification for services like Napster - I d/l'ed Coldplay's Parachutes, we decided we liked it, we went out and bought it. 128k mp3s are no substitute for the real thing. But now I can just pop into the iTunes music store and sample something legally and without cost.
__________________

And I can't see how they can be effective advertising if just one warez monkey can acquire himself £2,500 worth of goods! That's a pretty gyenormous advertising budget, whn you multiply it by the number of busy little warez monkeys there are.

Lot of stuff I listen to isn't on itunes, though they have got better having resolved the dispute with independent labels. But they still want what, £7.99 for an LP. For a quid more I can get the CD all wrapped up, plus the excitement of a parcel through the door.

No doubt I will move over to itunes et al in time mind, my ipod making me less concerned about having a CD on the rack.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by andyl

In a way, download sites are an effective marketing tool for the industry.

That is true assuming everyone (or even most people) who uses this site are honest enough to buy the music they are listening to. Note, I don't know the actual figures of people who do find a song on say,
, azeurus, then go and buy it (I do this), but I suspect a lot of people don't.

One thing I have found with iTunes though. If you register your computer for playback, then blow up the computer without unregistering it (as I did), it can be a bitch peruading Apple to unauthorise it for you..

Originally Posted by Chris T

And I can't see how they can be effective advertising if just one warez monkey can acquire himself £2,500 worth of goods! That's a pretty gyenormous advertising budget, whn you multiply it by the number of busy little warez monkeys there are.

It works as marketing because opinion leaders - those that regularly read the NME etc and are well into music - tell their mates who then go and buy the product. It's how home taping, which the industry said was killing music, used to work.

Amatize that "£2,500 " (always suspicious of how such things are costed) across many labels and artists and it seems less of a momentous cost. As an online marketing comparative, easyjet spends £18k per day on Google alone.

[TheBlueRaja]

I download tracks and albums that i *think* i will like and if i like them enough i will buy them.

If it wasnt for mp3 there are a lot of stuff that i wouldnt have bought.

The music industry expects us to buy something before you have even heard it - not on in my opinion - especially when the stuff you mostly listen too comes from bands, groups or DJ's you've probably never heard of.

I have about 27gig of music on my iPod - around 25 Gig of that is legit - Once i buy an album i will back it up from my PC onto my iPod at the bitrate and codec i use for a better copy, yet the industry is trying to bring in software on CD's that they intend to use to stop me from backing it up onto my iPod.

They can swing for all i care and i guarantee you that ANY album i buy that has copy protection goes back and instead i download it illegally.

How dare they doctor a CD that i want to listen to so that it dosent work in certain machines, thats just wrong IMO and they deserve what they get - which from me - is nothing.