Illegal downloading

[Amnesiac]

A less publicized but still raging debate is the one over file sharing and pirating music. It's a huge issue: 96% of 18—24 year olds and 89% of 14—17 year olds in a 2008 survey admitted to downloading music illegally. Tens of millions of people use file sharing services (legally or illegally) — back in 2004 it was estimated that, internationally, 70 million people used peer-to-peer networks.

Even though the Obama administration has pledged to crack down on music piracy, which they call "stealing" (as Vice President Biden said, "It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window," which isn't how piracy works in the first place), the sheer amount of people who participate in it and existing privacy law will probably make it difficult for any real prosecution to be done. I think the best way to fight piracy would be to make music ridiculously inexpensive, so people wouldn't have second thoughts about buying it. That means cutting the price of albums from their current $15 to $20 price range to $10 or $5 each. Songs could be slashed from the ridiculous $1.20 that's being charged now to $0.50 or less. This way people would choose to purchase music, because it would be no-second-thoughts cheap, high-quality (unlike some torrents and LimeWire) and risk-free.

Still, there's no real way to prosecute illegal downloading without taking down an array of privacy laws, and probably parts of the Bill of Rights. So, in your opinion, what's the most efficient way to end music piracy?

Source (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece)

Another source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_downloading)

Another source (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L3YN20100622)

[Death]

You know, it's funny you should say that, becuase I've been using an Audio Converter (http://2conv.com/) to download sountracks for games from YouTube videos; soundtracks that other sites would have you pay to dowload. I don't mind what you think, but what would you view that as being?

[Amnesiac]

You know, it's funny you should say that, becuase I've been using an Audio Converter (http://2conv.com/) to download sountracks for games from YouTube videos; soundtracks that other sites would have you pay to dowload. I don't mind what you think, but what would you view that as being?

Well, it's not downloading... no, technically it is. You downloaded the video by visiting it on youtube, then converted it to an audio file.

I really don't care about people getting music illegally, it's just that the government and record companies make such a big deal about it, and none of their ideas seem like they're practical at all.

[Death]

The government makes a big deal out of a lot of things. Heck, I've heard that some polliticians believe that simply using the term "black" is racist. But in a way, I do see why record companies may be annoyed. If people can download what they provide, then they're not being paid where they probably would be had the option for downloading htem not have been existant.

[Amnesiac]

Well, the government's job is to make a big deal out of everything to win votes, so that's not surprising. There is an argument from anti-copyright groups that people who pirate music actually buy more music than the average person, offsetting whatever loss the record companies have, but that's probably not true. It's just the price of music, it's become so inflated that people, especially in this economy, have no will to buy it anymore.

[Dog Desab]

what can the government do about getting illegally? i do it all the time but nothing has happened to me yet...

[Death]

You never know what polliticians will do. You realise that they're listening in to private phone conversations now? Nosey bastards.

[Amnesiac]

Haha, they'll pass a law authorizing the government to block torrenting websites and track IP addresses. thankfully the IPs (internet providers) can't legally release who's using whatever IP address without a warrant.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Even though the Obama administration has pledged to crack down on music piracy, which they call "stealing"

I get that, because Americas biggest problem right now is limewire.

[Amnesiac]

I get that, because Americas biggest problem right now is limewire.

Ha, they're probably being lobbied by the record companies.

Yeah, that's totally what's happening.

[darkwoon]

The most efficient way to end music piracy is probably to rething the economical model of music distribution.

The current efforts of governments and music lobbies are attempting to maintain the status-quo that existed before Internet came into use. This is, I think, heading for failure - Internet changed how we consume music, and nothing can get us back to the previous way of doing things.

I think that in the future, artists will become less and less dependent on the huge record companies, and will rely on side-promotion (goodies of all sorts), concerts, or luxury gifts ("collector" CDs and DVDs with lots of bonus and nice packaging are selling very well) to compensate the loss of money from music downloading.

To some extend, the same is very likely to happen with books as well - since ebook readers are slowly getting widespread, pirate ebooks will quickly hurt the paper book sells, and the writers will be forced one way or another to rethink their selling circuits and strategies completely.

All this, I believe, will not happen very fast - it may take 20 years to happen. But I'm convinced that we're going to see a lot changing in the next years for sure.

[Filipe]

when i go to beatport.. they charge me about 3 euros for each song... 100 songs = 300 euros? Are they stupid? If they charged less.. People would actually buy them... And... Even if you pay the 3 euros.. You aren't allowed to publicly play them... O.O

[Death]

No wonder people just download them free. They demand so much for it and even then, they put stupid restrictions on them. But can you expect better from these people?

[Amnesiac]

The most efficient way to end music piracy is probably to rething the economical model of music distribution.

The current efforts of governments and music lobbies are attempting to maintain the status-quo that existed before Internet came into use. This is, I think, heading for failure - Internet changed how we consume music, and nothing can get us back to the previous way of doing things.

I agree. The record companies can't keep charging so much money for music. Before the Internet there was no alternative source of music — you had to pay the price. With the Internet came torrenting, an easy, free, unmonitored and high-quality way to get music. The record companies can't just label it "stealing" and assume it'll be sorted out by the government. They need to actually competitively price their products and convince people to buy music. Threatening people with fines and lawsuits for downloading isn't a marketing strategy.

I think that in the future, artists will become less and less dependent on the huge record companies, and will rely on side-promotion (goodies of all sorts), concerts, or luxury gifts ("collector" CDs and DVDs with lots of bonus and nice packaging are selling very well) to compensate the loss of money from music downloading.

The problem is, as more and more people download more and more music, it's going to take more than just concerts and "goodies" to cover those losses. The best way would be to, again, competitively price music and lure people into buying it. We've seen the CD industry collapse, but it can be revived with cheaper albums and, as you said, fancy packaging. I love CDs, they come with all sorts of nice touches like album booklets and the music is at its highest possible quality. It just costs too much for me to buy them often.

To some extend, the same is very likely to happen with books as well - since ebook readers are slowly getting widespread, pirate ebooks will quickly hurt the paper book sells, and the writers will be forced one way or another to rethink their selling circuits and strategies completely.


E-book pirating is also a problem, albeit on a much smaller scale. Until e-readers become more popular and less expensive, it won't near the scale of illegal music downloads.

[deadpie]

I don't think there's anything wrong with downloading music illegally. Bands make most of there money off playing live and t-shirts, so I support them through that. Stopping music piracy would just lead to people stop getting music.

Hell, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails put out his last two albums for free on his site. He knows that the only way to make money is off playing gigs.

[Insanity Fair]

I only buy a song if I want to support the artist. I use a youtube to Mp3 converter to download everything else.

[darkwoon]

The problem is, as more and more people download more and more music, it's going to take more than just concerts and "goodies" to cover those losses. The best way would be to, again, competitively price music and lure people into buying it. We've seen the CD industry collapse, but it can be revived with cheaper albums and, as you said, fancy packaging. I love CDs, they come with all sorts of nice touches like album booklets and the music is at its highest possible quality. It just costs too much for me to buy them often.
I am not saying that goodies and concerts should cover the piracy financial losses - I'm saying that they'll be the main source of money for the artists. Artists are not, for the most part, the main loosers in the piracy war - it is the record companies. And frankly, what use would those record companies in an all-Internet distribution of music? None. I believe that artists will more and more rely on less intermediate corporations, which will not only lower the final price of music, but also increase their own profit margins significantly. I'd bet that most record companies have been so loud about piracy precisely because it makes them obsolete and useless.

E-book pirating is also a problem, albeit on a much smaller scale. Until e-readers become more popular and less expensive, it won't near the scale of illegal music downloads.
Yes; that's why I wrote my statement in the future tense - eBook readers are only starting to get out of the experimental status. But I'm pretty sure that we'll see the exact same situation in less than ten years. In fact, it may possibly be a fiercer battle, as editors tend to be more money-hungry than record labels.

[KillerKing]

I completely agree with what 'TheDarthEgg' said about prices. It's ridiculous to pay £10 - £15. iTunes may only usually charge £0.99 for a single track but it all adds up. 5 tracks would cost £4.95 which is actually quite a lot. You could get a whole collection for that off ebay. So i think they should reduce the price of music and then everyone will buy it. For example if it's 20p for one track then you would buy it. Purely because it's 20p and you can afford it! I think the music industry would be a lot better as a whole if they were to do that.

[Amnesiac]

I am not saying that goodies and concerts should cover the piracy financial losses - I'm saying that they'll be the main source of money for the artists. Artists are not, for the most part, the main loosers in the piracy war - it is the record companies. And frankly, what use would those record companies in an all-Internet distribution of music? None. I believe that artists will more and more rely on less intermediate corporations, which will not only lower the final price of music, but also increase their own profit margins significantly. I'd bet that most record companies have been so loud about piracy precisely because it makes them obsolete and useless.

If the record companies make less profit on music, that comes out of the artists' share as well. They are, by far, not the biggest losers in the piracy war. However, they still depend partially on the sale of their own records for money.

Record companies own the rights to songs, which is why they'll always be the biggest players in the music industry. They complain about piracy because it cuts so deeply into their income, not because it's making them "less important". Record companies also control online distribution of music because they give music stores such as iTunes permission to sell their music and take in part of the profit from sales. The record companies would play just as much of a role in an all-Internet industry than in an all-CD industry.

Yes; that's why I wrote my statement in the future tense - eBook readers are only starting to get out of the experimental status. But I'm pretty sure that we'll see the exact same situation in less than ten years. In fact, it may possibly be a fiercer battle, as editors tend to be more money-hungry than record labels.

I agree, plus since e-books are so much easier to download than music — they come in much smaller sizes — more than just high-speed Internet users would be illegally obtaining them.

I completely agree with what 'TheDarthEgg' said about prices. It's ridiculous to pay £10 - £15. iTunes may only usually charge £0.99 for a single track but it all adds up. 5 tracks would cost £4.95 which is actually quite a lot. You could get a whole collection for that off ebay. So i think they should reduce the price of music and then everyone will buy it. For example if it's 20p for one track then you would buy it. Purely because it's 20p and you can afford it! I think the music industry would be a lot better as a whole if they were to do that.

Yes, but they're stubborn in making any effort to do so. The record companies think they can get by by calling pirating illegal and morally wrong, but that's not going to have any real impact at all.

[JackOfClubs]

I only download TV shows that I can't get in America. IE Top Gear.
I would download more, but my ISP is creepin' on us; they shut off my internet for an entire day because I downloaded a movie once. Its kind of sad because 10Meg internet is great on uTorrent...

I never download music illegally though, because honestly, 1 dollar for a song is cheap. I hardly ever listen to an entire album, so pirating an entire album for one song is sad .really.

[Amnesiac]

I only download TV shows that I can't get in America. IE Top Gear.
I would download more, but my ISP is creepin' on us; they shut off my internet for an entire day because I downloaded a movie once. Its kind of sad because 10Meg internet is great on uTorrent...

I never download music illegally though, because honestly, 1 dollar for a song is cheap. I hardly ever listen to an entire album, so pirating an entire album for one song is sad .really.

I get top gear on TV, you don't?

I don't think my ISP (Comcast) spies on people, hopefully they don't. I do think downloading movies is even more dangerous than downloading music, since movies are usually worth a lot more.

[darkwoon]

If the record companies make less profit on music, that comes out of the artists' share as well. They are, by far, not the biggest losers in the piracy war. However, they still depend partially on the sale of their own records for money.
Of course - but I believe that in the future, the artist share will increase, as they'll tend to skip more and more the record company step, which will not anymore provide them a service they need.

Record companies own the rights to songs, which is why they'll always be the biggest players in the music industry.
On that I'm not sure at all. Record companies do not necessarily end up owning song rights - it is the artist's choice to give them or not. I believe that artists will more and more be reluctant to sell their rights to such intermediaries, because the benefits will not be high enough anymore.

They complain about piracy because it cuts so deeply into their income, not because it's making them "less important". Record companies also control online distribution of music because they give music stores such as iTunes permission to sell their music and take in part of the profit from sales. The record companies would play just as much of a role in an all-Internet industry than in an all-CD industry.
Of course, they *also* complain because it cuts in their income - but it is cutting in it precisely because the large-scale piracy they're currently experiencing is nothing but the symptom of the lack of adaptation of their current economical model. It is interesting to note that although iTunes is a rather successful platform, it didn't reduce piracy by any visible amount.

I'd correct by saying that currently, they indeed play an important role; but the threat over that kind of business is obvious: an artist wanting to sell its music online only doesn't need a record company to do so. Initiatives like Magnatune show that the added value provided by record companies is questionable at best.

The same kind of phenomen is also visible in book editing - Lulu or TheBookEdition are quite successful print-on-demand platforms that allow authors to skip the editor's step completely, increasing their margins and giving them more control on their work.

Now of course, there is an obvious drawback: record majors or book editors can provide an amount of advertisement to artists that they could have a harder time to get by themselves. They also have exclusive access to parts of the industry - some platforms refuse to deal with artists directly, recognizing record groups and editors as the only acceptable interlocutor. That's why I believe the model shift is going to take a generation, possibly more - the idea that the current economical model of book editors and record majors has reached its limits is not really accepted yet by the players themselves, and it will take time for them to recognize the fact.

[Amnesiac]

Of course - but I believe that in the future, the artist share will increase, as they'll tend to skip more and more the record company step, which will not anymore provide them a service they need.


On that I'm not sure at all. Record companies do not necessarily end up owning song rights - it is the artist's choice to give them or not. I believe that artists will more and more be reluctant to sell their rights to such intermediaries, because the benefits will not be high enough anymore.

You do have a point that in the future, record companies may not be so appealing to artists. But such a transition will take a long time and, on behalf of the artists, a lot of courage. Record companies hold such power because they are the main distributors. It's incredibly difficult to become successful in music without a record company promoting you and supplying you with the publicity you need.

Of course, they *also* complain because it cuts in their income - but it is cutting in it precisely because the large-scale piracy they're currently experiencing is nothing but the symptom of the lack of adaptation of their current economical model. It is interesting to note that although iTunes is a rather successful platform, it didn't reduce piracy by any visible amount.

Yes, the failure of record companies to modify their current policies is causing their downfall. I agree with you on that. iTunes also makes up a small percentage of total online downloads — an incredible majority of which are illegal.

I'd correct by saying that currently, they indeed play an important role; but the threat over that kind of business is obvious: an artist wanting to sell its music online only doesn't need a record company to do so. Initiatives like Magnatune show that the added value provided by record companies is questionable at best.

The Internet does provide artists with another path to success, but it still isn't easy without a record company. Record companies provide advertising and recording facilities that are much more difficult for an independent artist to obtain.

The same kind of phenomen is also visible in book editing - Lulu or TheBookEdition are quite successful print-on-demand platforms that allow authors to skip the editor's step completely, increasing their margins and giving them more control on their work.

Now of course, there is an obvious drawback: record majors or book editors can provide an amount of advertisement to artists that they could have a harder time to get by themselves. They also have exclusive access to parts of the industry - some platforms refuse to deal with artists directly, recognizing record groups and editors as the only acceptable interlocutor. That's why I believe the model shift is going to take a generation, possibly more - the idea that the current economical model of book editors and record majors has reached its limits is not really accepted yet by the players themselves, and it will take time for them to recognize the fact.

You kind of summed up what I've been saying before in that last paragraph there. It will take a very long time for record companies to fall, decades at least, since they provide artists with such essential services for them to become successful. People like Justin Bieber wouldn't spring into fame without the incredible power of the record companies behind them.

[tovaris]

downloading is not iligal uploading is.

[ECSTASY]

As we are limited here and we cant find original products on the shops... We have no way except downloading illegally

[StoppingTime]

downloading is not iligal uploading is.

This thread is from July 2010. Please don't bump (post in) threads that have been inactive for over two months at a time. :locked: