obama admin iracy crackdown

Dont think maybe legal programs like iTunes and Rhapsody might have an effect on that, as well? I know I buy individual songs online, rather than paying $20 for an album with only 1 or 2 songs on it I like...
 
Well then maybe they should stop using autotune and actually put out some good music? Everything sounds the same nowadays...
 
No Limit said:
Total sales of records worldwide.
Click to expand...

First: No source. You could've made that chart, and it certainly seems of a quality that wouldn't be in a study.

Second: Read the articles. They address that point quite well.
 
I don't know why I didn't add a link to the post with that image, can't find it now in my history (weird). They are based on ifpi numbers though:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/support_for_students.html

And why don't you summerize the point for me. You have a study that really is just a poll of a select group of people. These people could have lied (afterall who likes to admit that they only steal music and never pay for it). Then you have actual revenue figures from recording industries which have fallen 25% since 1999.

Do you honestly believe that if people have a choice to get something for free vs paying for it most of them will pay for it? You can't honestly believe that.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music said:
Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase.
Click to expand...

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars said:
Rogstad's dismissal of the findings don't take into account that the online music model has dramatically changed how consumers buy music. Instead of selling a huge volume of full albums—the physical media model—the record labels are now selling a huge volume of individual, cherry-picked tracks. It's no secret that the old album format is in dire straits thanks to online music, which is a large part of why overall music revenue is going down.
Click to expand...

ex dee?

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars said:
BI's report corroborates data that the Canadian branch of the RIAA, the Canadian Record Industry Association, released in 2006. At that time, the organization acknowledged that P2P users do indeed buy more music than the industry wants to admit, and that P2P isn't the primary reason why other people aren't buying music. 73 percent of of respondents to the CRIA's survey said that they bought music after they downloaded it illegally, while the primary reason from the non-P2P camp for not buying music was attributed to plain old apathy.
Click to expand...

Not exactly surprising you didn't read the articles.
 
Kinslayer said:
ex dee?
Click to expand...

How many songs would you say you bought this year? How many did you download for free?

And they asked 2,000 people for proof of purchase and all those people had proof? I need to read up more on how this survey was done, seems a little unrealistic.
 
Well my two cents


When it comes to anime if I wouldn't be able watch shows while they air in Nippon I would have never heard of them that would lead to not buying them on DVD/bluray same with some bands that people tell me are great so download a few songs and then I end buying the whole album or just songs I want off Itunes.
I have at least spent $300 in Itunes and my video game/movie shelf has never been more full.

oh yeah biggest example is NIN if I hadn't downloaded With Teeth when it came out I would have never gotten in to them (him?) now I own hard copies of most of his EP's and LP's and the Concert DVD's that were released.
And something tells me Trent doesn't mind if that how I got a hold of his music first.
 
The problem is that the music studios are pushing digital media away as hard as they can. This will fail. The world is going digital. They need to embrace the technology, or they will fade away.
 
No Limit said:
How many songs would you say you bought this year? How many did you download for free?
Click to expand...

I bought all of them. However, I had also listened to all of them beforehand either on the radio or Youtube; I don't buy any songs that I have not heard in their entirety at least a few times. A few exceptions for this because I like everything the band has produced previously so there's no need, but for the most part I buy individual songs, not albums.

Illegally downloaded music tends to have shit quality which I absolutely cannot stand. Is it more expensive to buy music? Yes. Is it worth it? **** yeah.
 
Well good for you. The majority of the people reading this probably download far more than they purchase, including myself.

Let's pretend that this study is flawless. That does not mean that the act of downloading music leads to you going out and buying music. As you pointed out you can listen to entire albums online legally before you buy them, so clearly that's not an argument for why someone would download something illegally. The reason people download stuff illegally is because they don't want to pay for it. They are taking content that doesn't belong to them without permission.
 
@NoLimit

unozero said:
oh yeah biggest example is NIN if I hadn't downloaded With Teeth when it came out I would have never gotten in to them (him?) now I own hard copies of most of his EP's and LP's and the Concert DVD's that were released.
Click to expand...

Or: Yes, yes it does. :rolleyes:

inb4 NoLimit says unozero's experience is not representative of the societal norm
 
Why download the album? Seems kind of silly downloading an entire album when you could go to you tube and countless other avenues and stream it for free legally? This excuse "I needed to download it to try it" doesn't make sense to me. Did you know that if you go in to most music stores you can listen to an entire album? iTunes will let you listen to samples of all the songs and now that they purchased lala I bet you $5 they will soon let you listen to entire albums for free one time.

This is simply not a logical excuse for downloading illegal music. I am curious how firmly you believe your theory. Do you honestly believe piracy doesn't hurt industries at all? Do you think it helps them?
 
No Limit said:
Why download the album? Seems kind of silly downloading an entire album when you could go to you tube and countless other avenues and stream it for free legally? This excuse "I needed to download it to try it" doesn't make sense to me. Did you know that if you go in to most music stores you can listen to an entire album? iTunes will let you listen to samples of all the songs and now that they purchased lala I bet you $5 they will soon let you listen to entire albums for free one time.

This is simply not a logical excuse for downloading illegal music. I am curious how firmly you believe your theory. Do you honestly believe piracy doesn't hurt industries at all? Do you think it helps them?
Click to expand...

For a long time, YouTube had terrible audio quality. This, plus the fact that you have to search for every individual song (and rarer songs are even harder to find in good quality) means it is not ideal for sampling music. Useful, but not ideal.

Rarer music is not available in your corner music store. Especially in the age where a ton of people listen to random indie band #74, you're not going to always find what you're looking for in the store. Coupled with this, you actually have to go somewhere rather than sitting at your computer.

iTunes gives you a 30 second preview which is absolute shit.

Looking at these options, yes; downloading is the best option. Not only do you get the entire album very easily and can easily find other stuff by that same artist, you're able to listen to the songs in their entirety - not the shitty radio edit, music video versions that are put on YouTube that are often not the full versions.

As for hurting industries, I can't say. If piracy didn't exist, then perhaps it would be better for the industries. However, it does exist, people have experienced its convenience, and as such trying to crack down on it (especially through "thought crimes") will only hurt the industry as people will simply give up on music and stick with their current collection.

Another theory for the fall in sales is the continuing rise of satellite and internet radio. Pandora, for some, is just as good if not better than your own music collection. It's free, gives you songs you'd never find normally, and allows for input so you don't have to listen to stuff you don't want to. So, I think the problem is that people are just buying less music in general, not that piracy is destroying the music industry.
 
But you had services like lala that let you listen to entire songs one time in CD quality. I have not yet seen a song that wasn't available to stream on youtube. Yes, the quality might not be the best but it's perfectly fine for forming an opinion. So I really don't buy that excuse. Certainly much easier to find something on youtube than to look through torrent sites then have to download an entire album (I know, not that difficult but certainly more complicated than searching you tube.

I have no doubt you are absolutely right about Pandora and satellite radio along with all the other factors at play, piracy is not the sole reason for drop in sales. But in the end if someone has something available to them for free the chances of them going out and buying it are not increased, they are decreased. We can argue the scale of how greatly those odds decrease but I don't think we can argue that there is a decrease.
 
The chart kind of makes sense.

I bought about 1,000 CDs before I got the internet (but about half of them were used), all before ~1999.

In about 1999, I started listening to streaming internet radio while at home.

I also had satellite TV which had quite a few music channels - more choices - stuff I never heard on the FM Radio.

Somewhere around 2003, I was a practicing musician so I spent hours, days, months, years making my own songs.

I no longer lived at home with family after around 2003 so I no longer had much expendable money.

I recorded the internet radio sometimes. I had no idea who I was listening to and had no chance of finding out, and no chance of buying it. I would end up with half of a song or whatever (clipped off at beginning and end) and the quality was poor. I would have bought it because I loved it.

Youtube was picked up by Google...

...streaming sites like lastFM, Pandora Radio

In like 2007 I discovered SXSW which netted me like 40 GB of free music over the years, of all different genres and musicians.

Then came free albums. NIN may have been the first to do this, but it's become popular.

I really have little reason to spend my money on any music anymore even if I was rich. I'm barely making ends meet; sometimes I'm destitute.

Even if I bought an album, I certainly wouldn't drive to a store for it. You know how much gas costs and all. It's a 40 minute drive each way to the record store at the mall, where they want $18 for an album where I'll probably only like 2 songs.

Yeah, I'm pretty much done buying CDs. I've got about 1000, plus all the free albums and such other music I've gained over the years, so I really have enough music for a life-time. I also have Youtube, and shit.

I think record companies like to show charts of CD sales dropping so they can get help fighting filesharing (as we see here). But mp3 sales have taken over from CDs, and they are very high, and higher every year, according to all sources.
 
No Limit said:
Why download the album? Seems kind of silly downloading an entire album when you could go to you tube
Click to expand...

*Implying that most of the songs uploaded on youtube are done so legally*

tee hee.
 
Krynn72 said:
*Implying that most of the songs uploaded on youtube are done so legally*

tee hee.
Click to expand...

I don't think you listening to it is illegal, the act of uploading it is. I could be wrong.
 
The upload is illegal, but the download is legal?

Hmm....
 
Depending on where you live it might be different.

In the US, they are both illegal, but obviously if it wasn't uploaded, then no one can download it. It's like distributors of drugs. Yes it's illegal to smoke a joint, but they want to bust the dealer.
 
Myspace is actually often great for listening to legal full streaming albums. It's great for the artists too. You can browse through there page while listening to the album, buy songs for 99 cents, or an entire album for like 10 bucks from their amazon link.
 
RIAA said:
Don’t you have a better way to spend five years and $250,000?
Click to expand...

This made me lol for some reason. Kinda like they're nudging you. "eh? sound better? no buttrape? yeah B)"
 
listening to songs on myspace or youtube?

my 14 year old sister does that.


no thx.
 
VirusType2 said:
Depending on where you live it might be different.

In the US, they are both illegal, but obviously if it wasn't uploaded, then no one can download it. It's like distributors of drugs. Yes it's illegal to smoke a joint, but they want to bust the dealer.
Click to expand...

My point was that "listen to them on youtube" is hypocritical. And the RIAA doesn't give a damn about distributors. They pick one poor sucker and rape them until their anus prolapses.

Figuratively speaking of course.
 
Anti-piracy ad: "You wouldn't steal a car".
Me: "No, but if my mate rang up & said "Dude I just got a new car, do you want me to burn you a copy?" I'd say "Hell Yeah!".
 
it also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.
Click to expand...

So like, what happens if someone wants to be a dick, and types "torrent daft punk" in your search engine while you are away from your computer?

How could that be proven or disproven? Doesn't sound legal at all.
 
The record industry can suck a dick. I'm going to pirate music for the rest of my life. I support the bands I listen to by going to see them live, at least then they make money.
 
Krynn72 said:
My point was that "listen to them on youtube" is hypocritical. And the RIAA doesn't give a damn about distributors. They pick one poor sucker and rape them until their anus prolapses.

Figuratively speaking of course.
Click to expand...

I was supporting your statement. It's illegal to use Youtube to watch (download) unauthorized videos. Basically, everyone in the world breaks copyrights all the time. Ever sing Happy Birthday? They are going to go after the big fish primarily; they want an easy and profitable conviction.

The Obama Administration needs to be put out on the street after this, though. Seriously, thought crimes? $250,000 .mp3s? That's not even legal to make the punishment severe in order to be a deterrent. The punishment should fit the crime.

It would be cool if we could get a different Democrat to vote for. Republicans (and Christians) terrify me. I don't trust them to run ANYTHING.
 
Reading through this thread, I was going to post loads of counter points to stuff that's been said. Mostly that graph. Seriously, have you seen some of the counter intuitive crap the recording industry put out, depending on what argument they want to support?

There are 2 points I want to make. Firstly, under the current laws of both the UK and the USA, piracy is still "copyright infringement". This was and still is, where no profit is made, a civil affair, not a criminal one. If you download for personal use, rather than to sell, it is not "illegal" or "crime" or "theft". you can throw all the moralistic arguments around you like, but under both US and UK law, it is NOT theft. That said, if they can prove you did it, they can sue you into bankruptcy.

And second, I just spent £90 on Linkin park tickets. You may be assured that I would not have paid this if I wasn't familiar with their music, and you may be equally assured that I wouldn't be as familiar with their music without downloads, so don't make out this is a one way street draining the music industry.
 
You guys keep using the term "download" when it comes to youtube. You aren't actually downloading anything, just streaming it. And I don't see how in the world that would be illegal since you have no way of knowing which content was uploaded legally and which wasn't. If they can't prove you intended to commit a crime then no crime was committed.

And the entire point is that you do have all these different avenues to listen to music without actually having to download it illegally. Someone just mentioned my space which is a great point, I listened to an album of a new artist I heard on sirius the other day. Yet with all these avenues people still download music. So I can't take the excuse that they are just doing it to get familiar with the artist and will go out and buy it if they like it seriously.

Link, how many legally owned content do you have of linkin park vs illegally owned content?
 
VirusType2 said:
You are downloading it. You can't play it without downloading it piece by piece.
Click to expand...
Although you are technically corrected that's called streaming.
You can even create a shortcut to the cache folder so you can move it, to keep it from being deleted.
Click to expand...

Once you do that you downloaded it, until then you streamed it.
 
No Limit said:
Link, how many legally owned content do you have of linkin park vs illegally owned content?
Click to expand...

If you read my post, I don't have any illegal linkin park content.

If you mean infringing content, I don't see how its relevant. This isn't a "money spent" comparison. And even if it was, say I had bought every album they have released, it would come to less than the £90 I spent on the tickets. And thats assuming I don't buy a couple of t-shirts at the gig.
 
So the answer is pretty much all of it is downloaded illegally. Copyright infringement, atleast in the USA, is illegal as it violates copyright law. You can ask the FBI if you don't believe me. I don't know how it is in your country but I doubt violating copyright laws in Britain is a civil as opposed to criminal matter.

And that's nice that you get to justify stealing intellectual property because you paid £90 for a concert once.
 
Hello my name is No Limit and I completely ignore the main points of all posts and instead call everyone criminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top