Illegal downloading

[PaxVobiscum]

Manchester seems to have the dubious honour of being the music piracy capital of the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19599526

I have met a surprising number of people who see nothing wrong with pirated music/videos/software but I would like to think that wouldn't be as acceptable on this forum.

The attitude of members of this forum seems pretty clear on the subject of fare evasion - condemnation. I wonder if it is as clear on music piracy?

 

[deltic1989]

Well if using a Youtube converter to download the odd song counts as piracy, then I'm guilty guv'nor.
Whilst I fully understand what you are saying. People will be unlikely to pay for something they can get for free, no matter how the argument is phrased.
I have never gone so far as to download software, or films (Youtube has a great selection of films now) , mainly for the reason of all the horror stories about torrent sites being full of viruses.

I must be one of those surprising amount of people who see no major issue with downloading music.
At the end of the day if I was an artist I would be more concerned about weather or not people were enjoying my music, than fretting over a losing a bit of money.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would have an issue with piracy if (to take one form of media as an example) box office receipts for films were tumbling. However they're not indeed most of the big studios (who are also the one that tend to make the most noise about piracy) have films that can make millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. When piracy actually starts to hurt their bottom line then I'll start to listen to their concerns, otherwise it sounds to me like a bunch of corporations that are desperate to try and maintain as much control of their consumers as they think they can get away with (they have a history of this, it took them quite a while to accept that VHS tapes were a good thing, they tried quite hard to have them banned originally).

Personally I think the issue is less the people downloading things for free and more that corporations that distribute the media are still refusing to properly engage with the internet and all the distribution options that it offers. For example people quite like to have digital copies of films so they can watch it on their laptop or iPhone or stream it over their wireless to their Xbox and yet most distributes don't support this, indeed they would probably try and prosecute you for it as it's illegal to make a copy of a DVD. On the other hand if they offered a digital download that didn't have onerous DRM with it I suspect many people would happily pay for this service.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Devil's Advocate stuff follows, please don't get upset at my substitutions in the quote. Just food for thought...

I would have an issue with Fare Evasion if ..... Ticket receipts for trains were tumbling. However they're not indeed most of the big TOCs (who are also the one that tend to make the most noise about Fare Evasion) have services that can make thousands or even millions of pounds in profits . When Fare Evasion actually starts to hurt their bottom line then I'll start to listen to their concerns, otherwise it sounds to me like a bunch of corporations that are desperate to try and maintain as much control of their consumers as they think they can get away with ...

I am not saying for a nanosecond that these views are in any way representative of ainsworth74 or anyone else here.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
At the end of the day if I was an artist I would be more concerned about weather or not people were enjoying my music, than fretting over a losing a bit of money.

At the end of the day if I was a greengrocer I would be more concerned about weather or not people were enjoying my fruit, than fretting over a losing a bit of money.
Neither statement has any justification whatsoever. If artists are offering their music in exchange for making a living, then of course they are going to fret over theft. And, IMHO, the argument that is is the "big corporations" who are stealing from the artists' cap feels like a pathetic attempt at justifying theft whenever I hear it. If we know the artists are getting a bum deal, are the "big corporations" more or less likely to improve that if we steal their product? Of course, when referring to anything remotely like "big business", we are trying to depersonalise things, and pretend it is a victimless crime. Sorry - it is theft.

 

[Yew]

One or two songs for a sample, then if I get into them Il'l get a Cd or something. Although with the amount of music on youtube I dont usually bother downloading Unless its something rare that I cant get hold of any other way.

The music industry has failed to adapt to changes in trends, people now want merchandise and live performances. T-shirts, books, and gigs are the way to make money these days

 

[NSEFAN]

The most noise about illegal downloading actually comes from publishers rather than artists.

The internet has levelled the playing field and people who were once consumers are now also producers of media. Instead of being more dynamic and adapting to the new technology, we basically have a group of rich companies throwing their toys out of the pram because they don't have as much control over what gets distributed.

I highly recommend The $8 billion iPod, which analyses the numbers put out about the perceived economic damage caused by online piracy.

 

[Donny Dave]

and yet most distributes don't support this, indeed they would probably try and prosecute you for it as it's illegal to make a copy of a DVD.

Not strictly true .... If you buy a music CD or a film on Blu-ray or DVD you are allowed to make a back up copy.

Making lots of copies, or streaming it for others to download however ....

 

[SS4]

Often the elephant in the room is that the music industry is that each pirated copy is equivalent for a lost sale which is most certainly not the case! It seems to be a base assumption too so renders all arguments based upon it moot.

Well if using a Youtube converter to download the odd song counts as piracy, then I'm guilty guv'nor.

Another crime you've committed is against audio quality

Whilst I fully understand what you are saying. People will be unlikely to pay for something they can get for free, no matter how the argument is phrased.

I agree, I'd go so far as to say it's seen as a victimless crime by those who download illegally. It's always "the record companies" getting their comeuppance rather than a given artist. The chances of being caught are still relatively slim - has anyone even been taken to court in the UK?

I have never gone so far as to download software, or films (Youtube has a great selection of films now) , mainly for the reason of all the horror stories about torrent sites being full of viruses.

I must be one of those surprising amount of people who see no major issue with downloading music.
At the end of the day if I was an artist I would be more concerned about whether or not people were enjoying my music, than fretting over a losing a bit of money.

People enjoying your music doesn't pay the bills. Give me live music any time

 

[GB]

Not strictly true .... If you buy a music CD or a film on Blu-ray or DVD you are allowed to make a back up copy.

Making lots of copies, or streaming it for others to download however ....

Unless things have recently changed, it is illegal (at the moment) to copy a CD,DVD or BD if you have to circumvent the copyright protection on the disc.

When it comes to films, alot of the major studios are starting to wake up to the fact that the end consumer might like a back up or to be able to play it on a portable media device and as such may include a digital copy or an ultra violet digital copy.

 

[table38]

I remember taping the Top 40 off the radio in the 70s... does that count? You had to be very fast on the pause button to miss the DJ's back-anouncements

I also remember borrowing LPs from friends and taping them, and as they wouldn't fit on a C60 cassette tape, C90 tapes were introduced (presumably just by an amazing coincidence )

Another crime you've committed is against audio quality

I think the biggest crime against quality from those days was these cover albums

 

[Donny Dave]

Unless things have recently changed, it is illegal (at the moment) to copy a CD,DVD or BD if you have to circumvent the copyright protection on the disc.

When it comes to films, alot of the major studios are starting to wake up to the fact that the end consumer might like a back up or to be able to play it on a portable media device and as such may include a digital copy or an ultra violet digital copy.

Having done a quick Google, it appears your correct. It even appears to be illegal to change the file format, so for instance, you can not create a music CD from songs on your PC to play in your car stereo if it doesn't support mp3 (mine doesn't, unless the songs were in .wav format already ....

 

[jon0844]

When it comes to films, alot of the major studios are starting to wake up to the fact that the end consumer might like a back up or to be able to play it on a portable media device and as such may include a digital copy or an ultra violet digital copy.

Yes, but they've got a way to go yet. I was given a Blu-ray film at a Sony event and no longer have a BD player - as I watch films via Sky Movies, Netflix or Lovefilm, or renting via Google Play or iTunes (so much choice!).

So, I thought - great - I can get a digital copy! The process to register and install the software, then to do the same on my Android device, was so long winded and required two individual accounts (and, passwords in a format that I wouldn't normally use) and so much hassle that it took ages to finally get to download the film to my tablet - where the quality isn't even that good. Given I own that film now, I'd be inclined to go and download an illegal rip of the Blu-ray, at a higher bit rate and without any protection. It's so much easier.

Make it easy to get stuff legally and you might stand a chance. And one day we'll get the industry working together so every film/TV show will be available through one service (even if you might pay a premium for some content via one over another for competition purposes) and possibly with the option for a fixed monthly fee, ala Spotify.

What you watch will see your fee divided up accordingly, so the quality films/TV shows/music will earn the most money. Seems fair to me, but at the moment there are too many people wanting a slice of the pie for that to ever happen.

[Off topic, I am concerned that when buying stuff in digital form, or just renting stuff you will go through life not actually acquiring anything in physical form to sell or pass on to someone else - but that's seemingly going to become the norm, whether we like it or not].

 

[DaveNewcastle]

At the end of the day if I was an artist I would be more concerned about weather or not people were enjoying my music, than fretting over a losing a bit of money.

Good for you! I greatly admire vocational artists, other vocational creative people and vocational services in general; I support several voluntary organisations myself and wish them every success.

However, I strongly resist any suggestion that there is any connection between working on a vocational basis and any particular field of work. (e.g. vocational train drivers; vocational Police Officers; salaried grafitti artists; salaried hill walkers). Specifically, I resist the suggestion that a musician or composer is obliged to be un-paid by virtue of their choice of profession.

It is true that the music industry has been painfully slow to embrace the opportunities created by electronic distrbution, and current responses to Government following the Hargreaves Report by UK Music may still include traces of self-interest among the royalty collection structure of Societies [I will declare a professional interest here]. But none of these failings or criticisms of 'the industry' should ever be confused with a wish to avoid paying every musician, composer and singer their full and fair pay for their work.

If you want to own a copy, then you'd better pay for it. If not then you'd better have a discussion with the rights owner to show me their wish to work vocationally.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'm staring at my phone's playlist and weeping right now.
I don't see much wrong with it if I'm honest, however the downloads should be counted and if they're valid on the charts I think it would be a bit fairer.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm staring at my phone's playlist
. . . .
the downloads should be counted and if they're valid on the charts I think it would be a bit fairer.

I'm not sure you quite understand the issue that you are commenting on.
Columnist David Pogue remarked last month that of of the 10 most pirated dowloaded films last year, the proportion of these which the industry had made available for (paid-for) downloading was zero.

Now can you see the problem?
Don't look at your phone. Look at the artist.

 

[ainsworth74]

Columnist David Pogue remarked last month that of of the 10 most pirated dowloaded films last year, the proportion of these which the industry had made available for (paid-for) downloading was zero.

It strikes me reading that, the solution would be therefore to provide a paid-for download alternative. People want to download it, so give them the option to do so legally. But I guess the film industry instead sees that and thinks they need to do more to prevent people from pirating. It seem to me that they're trying to 'cure' a symptom of the problem rather than a cause of the problem.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It seem to me that they're trying to 'cure' a symptom of the problem rather than a cause of the problem.

A very astute observation!
I'd be tempted to look a little further and ask if 'the industry' has correctly identified which elements of 'the problem' are external and which are internal.

I suspect that, despite the boasts of achieving growth of 23% annually on internet sales, the film, music, print and visual arts industries are still hampering their own potential to ensure and to maximise the income for their creative people.

 

[jon0844]

The good thing about offering legal downloads is that many people will pay to enjoy a top quality download, so that they can enjoy it on their home equipment. They might be able to download a pirated version of a film, but it could be a low bitrate, or a camcorder job - that nobody would play on their home cinema set up. I think people no longer just accept poor quality as they did in the old days of ropey VHS recordings or even Video CDs (ahead of DVDs and Blu-ray).

Ironically, you can get better quality illegal downloads than going the legal route as has been my own experience. That doesn't make sense, which is half the problem.

People still go to the cinema, despite the high price for a ticket (and even more for food/drink) because it's a night out - and you get to see a movie on a bigger screen than you have at home. You get better sound and 3D is still better in a dark theatre, than at home in the vast majority of cases. Oh, and you can see a film quicker.

So, I am not sure what the film industry has to worry about if it wakes up. The music industry seems to have realised that big names will get people to go to gigs and buy merchandise, so to a degree many big name artists tolerate piracy (and some even seem to endorse it).

I guess the victims are the smaller artists and movie producers, who wouldn't get a look in - but I do think that in this age of social media/sharing, people actually do seem keen to seek out something new. In many respects, it's 'cooler' to find something new - so it needn't be as big a problem because you will be found if you're any good.

People pay £50 or more a month for a Sky or Virgin TV subscription, or £7 for Netflix, £10 for Spotify - so why wouldn't you just create an 'all-you-can-eat' package for £xx per month and have done with? Even the current system of having individual TV channels may one day disappear, as people get to just watch what they want and never flick through channel guides - they just search for what they want (clearly you'd still have a way to highlight and showcase things) and go by recommendations from friends.

Again, there's the risk of how it affects the production of shows with a smaller audience, but I am sure that can be addressed. In some respects, I feel that rather than risk not being carried by a channel - or axed before the second season despite good figures overseas, having the ability to have your show seen by everyone, anywhere, might ensure you still have a big enough audience to keep things in production. Chances are, more good shows would survive!

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I will not buy in any shape or form anything emanating from WMG, Universal etc.
I own about 3 CDs and 6 DVD's.
youtube is not what it used to be, but about my only source of music on the net.
Phonographic Performance Limited = PPL now charge guest houses for having a TV in a public lounge or bar - the adverts may contain copyright music!
Performing Rights Society = PRS are similarly after the same pot, therefore 2 separate charges!
A pub landlord has to pay a bill for his juke box, and another to PRS for when it switches to background music.
WMG muted a video on youtube of a young girl paying and singing 'Winter Wonderland' with her guitar, it is just within copyright thanks to the now extended copyright laws. WTF
Poor quality CDs and filler tracks.....as for Nicky Minaj, have hit an all time low.
A history of greed.
Sky, Sun, etc ...none of my pennies go to Rupert Murdoch!!!

 

[Jonny]

I will not buy in any shape or form anything emanating from WMG, Universal etc.
I own about 3 CDs and 6 DVD's.
youtube is not what it used to be, but about my only source of music on the net.
Phonographic Performance Limited = PPL now charge guest houses for having a TV in a public lounge or bar - the adverts may contain copyright music!
Performing Rights Society = PRS are similarly after the same pot, therefore 2 separate charges!
A pub landlord has to pay a bill for his juke box, and another to PRS for when it switches to background music.
WMG muted a video on youtube of a young girl paying and singing 'Winter Wonderland' with her guitar, it is just within copyright thanks to the now extended copyright laws. WTF
Poor quality CDs and filler tracks.....as for Nicky Minaj, have hit an all time low.
A history of greed.
Sky, Sun, etc ...none of my pennies go to Rupert Murdoch!!!

One easy solution for the guest house - just show the BBC channels, especially BBC news; guaranteed no copyright-music ads (avoid Top of the Pops etc. though).

 

[Requeststop]

Hope this doesn't get me arrested when I next come back to the UK.

I do download from a torrent site. It used to be two torrent sites but an organisation the US forced one to close by issuing them with a "cease and desist" order. That organisation is called FACT (The Federation Against Copyright Theft).

The site I used was UK based and has strict rules as to what was made available. I am damned if I can figure out why a US organisation can force the closure of a UK based site offering just UK programmes and news. There was nothing on that site from outside the UK. Another case of US jurisdiction being threatened on a world-wide basis.

The sole site I use now is not UK based but again, it deals with UK only programmes. I download UK TV programmes which I cannot see where I work and when I am at home, as It's impossible where I am to see anything other than US TV crap, or BBC repeats from 10-15 years ago. If there are programmes available then it's in a different language, or in the case of the Games, 2-3 hours a day and featuring the local countries athletes.

I know many of the users of my present site are UK expats who need their fix of the soaps etc. I prefer the classier programmes that I'd never get to see.

Like many others who live away from the UK, I would like the chance to pay the BBC a fee for access to their iPlayer, and see excellent programming from the UK. The chance to see the Olympics and Paralympics live without using a proxy server and the inevitable delays, to listen to 5-live and 5-live Sports Extra without the service being cut off because of "Rights Issues", which are never properly explained nor are you ever told which organisations have the rights to broadcast overseas.

Regarding Music etc, I have a large CD collection of my classical and popular music which I have copied into flac or mp3 formats and I carry on a portable drive so I can listen to what I have bought with my own cash.

I see and read that recording studios are finding it difficult to say open. Sales are down, and like Mr Branson does often find publicity by use of crocodile tears. Thinking about it, he has recording studios too. For me, the producers of films and music haven't kept up with technology. The money paid to musicians and actors etc, like football players is well over what they are worth. OK I download from a torrent site. I take good drama, good entertainment, great science and nature programmes, many in excellent 720 and 1080 HD, (No 3D yet - I don't fancy wearing the glasses), but I don't pass onto others.

Am I a baddie?

 

[Oswyntail]

... The money paid to musicians and actors etc, like football players is well over what they are worth. ...

Like football players, what you see is the stupid money paid to the "top" performers. Try telling orchestral musicians they are overpaid - yet their work will probably be in most download collections. The jobbing actors with one or no lines - essential to the programme (imagine it without) - the same. All the special pleading you see by downloaders ignores 99.9% of the workers involved

...Am I a baddie?

Sorry, but yes you are.

Incidentally, it is often stated that the producers "have not kept up with technology". Could anyone explain what technology is available that enables digital products to be distributed that guarantees that the recipient has paid for the product.

IMHO, defenders of illicit downloading are like the looters in Tottenham last year, claiming that it was just about everyone else in the world who was responsible for making them loot.

 

[GB]

Sorry, but yes you are.

A bit harsh there. I can't see what the uk broadcasting channels are losing by someone in another country downloading a program that is not in anyway available to watch on normal tv.

Incidentally, it is often stated that the producers "have not kept up with technology". Could anyone explain what technology is available that enables digital products to be distributed that guarantees that the recipient has paid for the product.
.

Digital downloads are nothing new. Software companies have been doing it for years where by you have to make the purchase before getting access to the downloads. In more recent time for entertainment you have services like iTunes, Netflix, love film where again you need to make a purchase before you can download. The trouble with the likes of iTunes etc is the usage restrictions that you have after the download has finished.

 

[SS4]

Incidentally, it is often stated that the producers "have not kept up with technology". Could anyone explain what technology is available that enables digital products to be distributed that guarantees that the recipient has paid for the product.

"guarantees that the recipient has paid for the product" - none largely because the recipient doesn't pay for the product, they pay for the right to rent that product indefinitely or until the vendor/label unilaterally decides they don't want you to have it. At the moment it means little if it's non-DRM and backed up somewhere but as more and more music is internet connected and the cloud grows the danger of the vendor (being allowed by the EULA the user must agree to) reaching into the file system and deleting the file in case of the former or simply removing access in case of the latter increases.

As for guarantees that the product has been paid for? There aren't any, just probabilities as has always been the case.

IMO Piracy is a straw man that the largest companies are gunning for in order to increase restrictions, decrease offline sharing (anyone remember borrowing your friend a book? Try with an ebook) and to generally eliminate competition (especially in the case of music)

Amazon's Terms of Use for MP3: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200285010

They're quite tame but 1, 2.2, 2.3 and 5 are interesting reads (but far from easy to find, I had to use google)

 

[Donny Dave]

Sorry, but yes you are.

Incidentally, it is often stated that the producers "have not kept up with technology". Could anyone explain what technology is available that enables digital products to be distributed that guarantees that the recipient has paid for the product.

IMHO, defenders of illicit downloading are like the looters in Tottenham last year, claiming that it was just about everyone else in the world who was responsible for making them loot.

Regarding BBC content (and the other terrestial channels), I think that is fine, as the BBC do make most of their programming available to watch (and download) for free a short time later, albiet with viewing restrictions.

 

[jon0844]

A bit harsh there. I can't see what the uk broadcasting channels are losing by someone in another country downloading a program that is not in anyway available to watch on normal tv.

They might not get to buy the rights to show programmes if they don't restrict viewing to the area they've got the rights to.

 

[Requeststop]

Sorry, but yes you are.

I look forward to my prison visits from you then. Bring a few rail mags with you please!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Am I a baddie?

To hark back to the film "The Life of Brian", you may not exactly be "the Son of God", but you are most certainly "a very naughty boy".

 

[starrymarkb]

It strikes me reading that, the solution would be therefore to provide a paid-for download alternative. People want to download it, so give them the option to do so legally. But I guess the film industry instead sees that and thinks they need to do more to prevent people from pirating. It seem to me that they're trying to 'cure' a symptom of the problem rather than a cause of the problem.

Valve realised that if you offer a better paid for alternative then people will pay. Witness the growth of Steam which gives the PC Gamer incentives to download legally (with Multiplayer, Achievements, Community, Promotions and Huge Sales)

There is also Good Old Games that lets you download older titles that are not available from mainstream sources for $5 (and therefore reducing piracy)

I will download certain FS add-ons mainly to try before I buy (Glad I did with the Wilco Publishing 737 as if I'd paid £45 for that piece of crap - I'd have been most upset - by the way Wilco don't give refunds on Downloads - it's since been deleted)