With the rapid growth of broadband and the abilitty to download more music and movies than ever before Digital Piracy is becoming a real big issue.
Every time a new form of copy protection is found someone manages to break it, such as creating CD's to not play on computers could be overcome by using a marker pen to cover the outer ring of the disk!
The only way for music companies to compete is on the same terms by making music easy to get hold of and cheap to buy.
Will Record Industry attempts to stop the swapping of music online ever work?
What are your views on digital piracy and what are your concerns on such matters as this?
As long as they're selling these small plastic discs for 20â,¬ each, I don't really pity them...if they dump the prices considerably, I might rethink.
Here I can get an mp3 cd with 10-12 albums of a group for around 7 euro.
An important thing to recognise is that, here in Australia at least and it may be true in other countries, record sales statistics are being a tad misrepresented.
For example, the industry points to the fact that revenues have gone down.
On the other hand, more albums are being sold, and the growth in record slaes has actually increased since the internet increased piracy.
It's just that Cd prices have begun to drop and here at least that is almost entirely due to the fact that the ACCC fixed up the market so CD's were being sold at market prices.
And anyway, since Mp3's provided a try before you buy, i've bought far more cds as a result than I ever did before.
I think digital piracy should be made legal. In fact, it should be ENDORSED! It would save a lot of work for the people who have to chase you up, and it saves you having to work behind the government's back and (possibly, maybe) feeling bad about it. So everyone wins, really.
Why didn't they think of this before?
...because the same can be said about any crime, basically.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong.
Record prices here are expensive. You spend a lot of money on music and a lot of these bands and artists which make millions such as Britney Spears are making ridiculous amounts of money due to £16 per album.
A recent court case sued music retailers for $143 million due to record prices being too high, and with the ease of downloading music why should we pay that much anyway.
I find it will take me roughly 5 minutes to find and download a song for free but it will take me over an hour to go out and buy an album; this also costs money on transport etc...
I find that the music I listen to I feel I should support so most of the music I download, i download just to listen to and see whether or not I like it, i think digital piracy is more about advertising with a lot of people.
What about views on a larger sale, as in downloading or buying a music album, making dozens of copies and selling them at a discounted price?
Quote from: Magintz on Thu 01/04/2004 14:54:59
I find it will take me roughly 5 minutes to find and download a song for free but it will take me over an hour to go out and buy an album; this also costs money on transport etc...
itunes?
Talking of films... Downloading films just don't make loose money to the cimenas in my very case, because before of the internet I went to cinemas once a month and now... I still go once a month.
It is just that now I can see the films that I wouldn't have seen before, I download them.
I like the cinema atmosphere, and the good films still deserve that I spent money in them. Sometimes I watch the downloaded film (with just average quality, most of the times), and if I like it, I exceptionally go to the cinema twice that month...
That works also for music... I still buy the albums I think they deserve it, and I download the ones I have a doubt about...
I can't complain about digital piracy, and more important... Discographic industry wouldn't really complain about my attitude, they don't miss money with me.
And yes... Andail is right... I spent more than 2 years without buying music, just listening to my old albums, because some "smart" guy of EMI records thought that the second album by Oasis was such good to cost 40 bucks. disgusting... they deserve piracy.
Quote from: Farlander on Thu 01/04/2004 17:01:13
Talking of films... Downloading films just don't make loose money to the cimenas in my very case, because before of the internet I went to cinemas once a month and now... I still go once a month.
It is just that now I can see the films that I wouldn't have seen before, I download them.
I like the cinema atmosphere, and the good films still deserve that I spent money in them. Sometimes I watch the downloaded film (with just average quality, most of the times), and if I like it, I exceptionally go to the cinema twice that month...
That works also for music... I still buy the albums I think they deserve it, and I download the ones I have a doubt about...
Exactly! Before mp3's i was taping songs from radio or we exchange cds with friends and taped (and later, after cd-rs came, burn) good songs off CDs.
That's the reason why i think it's completely insane to even try to "estimate" the loss in numbers...
Nobody sane will spend 30-40 bucks for an album with 2 or 3 good songs.
The same goes for movies. I like going to cinema, as it's not just the movie... it's completely different feeling than watching it on TV. But because of DIVX, we can see movies, we would pass otherwise. If i really like some, i go and buy DVD (as it happened with The Ring).
Music:
If they substantially lower the cost of CDs I might start buying them again.
If they substantially lower the cost of 'legal' mp3, I might start using iTunes or something similar.
Until then they can pound sand for all I care.
I'll continue to DL mp3 for free.
Movies:
When the industry goes digital, and theaters can just download their movies from a satellite, I hope they lower ticket costs.
But that's a completely naive hope.
They're, more than likely, going to raise ticket prices.
Even though getting a movie digitally will probably be 90% cheaper per movie to distribute than traditional film stock versions.
But I'll still go to the cinema to see movies I want to see. I'm paying for the experience I get from it. Not for the distribution of the movie!
~ d
All this can really cause you to rethink if all these musicians and actors are really worth the millions of dollars they're making. To most people, it probably seems ludicrous to hear a whiny pop star say "I only made $4.9 million instead of $5 million!" Besides, most of their revenue comes from their live concerts.
I think it's the same with movies. I love going to movies, and I don't see digital piracy replacing the movie experience anytime soon. Moreover, if you love a particular singer, you can always support them by going to their concert.
I think it's really funny how record companies have approached the issue. Napster was shut down, but inevitably a whole bunch of new bigger and better p2p sharing programs sprouted up to replace it. It doesn't matter if Kazaa is shut down next or not (I doubt it will be). Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a lot of these programs use the same backbone (e.g., FastTrack)? Why not go after that instead, and place restrictions on what can be transferred? What's the point in shutting down front-ends if all someone has to do is make another one?
The technological idiocy of those who oppose digital piracy may just be what saves it.
Quote from: Migs on Thu 01/04/2004 21:04:37The technological idiocy of those who oppose digital piracy may just be what saves it.
That's a great quote!
They waste so much money on fighting piracy, rather than just lowering prices. It's rediculous.
I loved the announcements a few months back about 'record companies slashing prices' ... now they're $13.99 instead of $14.99. Gee ... thanks guys.
Morons.
~ d
Music companies' sales arent affected by piracy. The only thing that really is are the major movie companies. Even still they make more money the any of us will in a lifetime only on one movie. These artists live in fucking castles and I live in a rundown home we cant pay for, yet they complain about losing money. Those bastards.
Quote from: Evil on Thu 01/04/2004 22:38:27
Music companies' sales arent affected by piracy.
Well, some people are affected. My local record shop (which I used to patronize frequently) is closing because since 1998 when online music sharing began to gain mainstream prominence their sales have been steadily declining and they can no longer afford to stay in business.
True, but with all these places like Borders and Sam Goody, that sell way more then music, it isnt much of a major issue. Still sales are still high in many places. I think the companies need to give out gift cards as gifts. That way you have to use it as store credit.
Quote from: remixor on Thu 01/04/2004 22:45:15Well, some people are affected. My local record shop (which I used to patronize frequently) is closing because since 1998 when online music sharing began to gain mainstream prominence their sales have been steadily declining and they can no longer afford to stay in business.
I'm with you on this one.
It sucks that local shops like that suffer.
I still think it's the big record companies fault. But it's still unfortunate.
~ d
Quote from: remixor on Thu 01/04/2004 22:45:15
Well, some people are affected. My local record shop (which I used to patronize frequently) is closing because since 1998 when online music sharing began to gain mainstream prominence their sales have been steadily declining and they can no longer afford to stay in business.
Yeah, agree here... even though i don't think that's really (just) piracy issue...
We have around 4-5 mayor record shops in our city (which is a lot, for such a small place) and they are doing good. But as the side effect, some smaller, local shops went down. From outside it might seem that the main cause for this is piracy, while in reality it's mostly just tough competition.
I think when Broadband is the common medium for internet connection, it will have a more of an effect on sales of albums.
As Las mentioned, in Aus, record sales have increased since people started downloading songs. In fact in the last year there were more albums sold than ever before, and I think this has a lot to do with people downloading music.
I really don't know what the record companies are complaining about, they should be encouraging it, or even developing their own p2p networks.
There has been a large drop in 'Single' sales, but the record companies are releasing less and less singles and concentrating more on Albums.
Are they releasing less cause people aren't buying them? or are they trying to make it look like sales are down for no particular reason? It's just a trend that's happening.
Since Broadband is becoming more available and cheaper everywhere, i guess it's only a matter of time until Albums go the same way. (i mean, you can d/l a whole album and burn it quicker than it takes to listen to it [and also quicker than going out and buying it {unless you live next door to record store}])
I also think a lot of people d/l albums they would never actually buy anyway, you get to try something out instead of wasting money, If you like it you might buy their next album (or even that one if you feel the need).
Like in any occupation, the people up the top will make shitloads more than the common trolls, and I don't think a little d/l will have much effect on their pockets.
and if it does, poor fucking didums
I think the bigger damage caused by the internet to the film industry is that now people can find out their peers' impressions of a film far more swiftly.
Piracy can cause more damage by allowing a film to be reviewed by members of the public before its release, which makes it harder to buy a first weekend with marketing.
They could spend their money making better films, but that's too hard though.
Quote from: Evil on Thu 01/04/2004 23:14:22
True, but with all these places like Borders and Sam Goody, that sell way more then music, it isnt much of a major issue.
I guess, but if all the independant record shops close and we're left with just stuff like Borders (which has a really poor music selection anyway) and Sam Goody, it's just another case of the big corporations controlling everything, and isn't that part of the complaint against the record companies?
In the last week, there was a study released in the US that showed music piracy wasn't to blame for poor music sales.
Of course, the record industry reps said the study was rubbish.
What I think is stupid is you have music celebs jumping on the anti-Napster/anti-Kazaa bandwagon because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for poor album sales.
I wondered if they considered that maybe they got poor sales because their albums were shithouse.
I haven't bought many CDs lately.
Having said that, I've probably downloaded one or two songs in the last six months.
Film piracy is another issue and, in some cases, more rigid than the music industry.
Consider the whole Academy screeners issue from last year -- Someone got expelled from the Academy for accidently lending his screener tape to a friend (who, in turn, pirated it on the net).
I think a bigger issue, though, is software piracy.
And that's a whole new debate. :-\
Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 02/04/2004 12:07:56
What I think is stupid is you have music celebs jumping on the anti-Napster/anti-Kazaa bandwagon because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for poor album sales.
That is about the most pleasing statement I have heard all day.
It drives me absolutely
NUTS to hear those talentless singers being interviewed, and being reduced to tears because "stupid youngin's are downloading their music instead of buying it!" If I found half those songs on my comp, I'd probably pay someone to take them OFF!
Just a quick think... I use screeners/albums downloads as previews.
Many times before the internet, the industry launched two good singles of an album or two good gags in the trailer of a comedy, and I went to the music shop/cinema fooled by this.
This won't happen for me anymore... conlussion I extract: People of the "industry"... Release better albums/films, because costumers now have the possibility to have a so much better preview than before.
Is this what really pisses of the people of the "industry"?
Probably.
They'd hate ANYONE who could see what the whole product was like. I know I would.