Time to start using some dodgy Russian sites?

[Happy Face 29]

Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.

 

The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.

 

Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government.

 

BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up.

 

Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: "All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks."

 

Mr Taylor said it had taken years to persuade ISPs to adopt this view.

 

The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.

 

It also commits the net firms to develop legal music services. "Conversations are ongoing between record labels and ISPs," said Mr Taylor.

 

The BPI has focused on educational efforts and limited legal action in recent years, in contrast to the US, which has embarked on tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged file sharers.

 

The six internet service providers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR).

 

The BPI said the memorandum covered consumers who were both uploading and downloading music.

 

Mr Taylor said: "The focus is on people sharing files illegally; there is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."

 

He added: "File-sharing (of copyright tracks without permission) is not anonymous, it is not secret, it is against the law."

 

At the same time the government has started a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy. A working group will be set up under the auspices of regulator Ofcom to look at effective measures to tackle persistant file-sharers.

 

Mr Taylor said newspaper reports stating that online users could be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing were incorrect.

 

"A levy is not an issue under discussion. It has not been discussed between us and government and as far as we are aware it is not on the table."

 

He said: "There should be effective mechanisms in place (to deter file-sharing) and as long as they are effective, we don't mind what they are."

 

The consultation document proposed that hard core file-sharers could have technical measures imposed, such as "traffic management or filtering and marking of legitimate content to facilitate identification".

 

In the past few weeks net firms Virgin and BT have sent letters to some customers identified by the BPI, which represents the UK record industry, as persistent music pirates.

 

'Long process'

 

Before now the BPI has called for a "three-strikes" system which would see net connections of persistent pirates terminated if three warnings went ignored.

 

Many net firms have resisted the call from the BPI and have said it is not their job to act as policemen.

 

Feargal Sharkey, chief executive of British Music Rights, said the plan was "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process".

 

Mr Sharkey, formerly lead singer with The Undertones added: "Government, particularly in the UK, has now realised there is an issue, there is a problem there."

 

One BBC News website user Mark, from Hampshire, said he downloaded and shared files illegally and argued customers were "getting their own back".

 

In an e-mail, he said: "I used to run half a dozen record shops in the 80s and saw how far the fat cats of the record industry would go, in milking customers and retailers dry with more hyped rubbish."

 

"Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back."

 

"So will this make me sharing a CD with my next-door neighbour over the fence illegal?" he added.

 

Down with this sort of thing.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

[Happy Face 29]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Nah, I'm not really fussed.

 

If they feel they don't earn enough from touring (which I spend a great deal on over the course of a year) they can get a proper job as far as I'm concerned.

[ChezGiven 0]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Nah, I'm not really fussed.

 

If they feel they don't earn enough from touring (which I spend a great deal on over the course of a year) they can get a proper job as far as I'm concerned.

 

What about people like Burial? You cant tour music that is designed for dancefloors that easily.

 

Should all films be free too then? A film isnt a performance, its packaged onto a media format and re-produced, in exactly the same way a CD is. Same principle, even if the analogy needs a little extra work.

[Fop 1]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Not surprised you believe in attempting to secure price rigging, even at the cost of everyone else's privacy rights.

 

 

When they release downloads at a low enough price they sell a lot more and make a lot more total profit, problem is for most of the entirety of the 20th century recording companies could have their cake and eat it (i.e. price rig and gouge and still sell), and they are still stuck in that mindset. Internet piracy is the closest thing to free market competition the recording industry has ever faced, and they really don't like it.

 

 

Recording companies will do pretty much anything in this cause, be it borderline/actual privacy infringements, or utterly illegal stuff like Sony's automatic root-kit installation from CDs (on windows anyway). As I'm sure you know, Law is all about who can buy it.

[Happy Face 29]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Nah, I'm not really fussed.

 

If they feel they don't earn enough from touring (which I spend a great deal on over the course of a year) they can get a proper job as far as I'm concerned.

 

What about people like Burial? You cant tour music that is designed for dancefloors that easily.

 

Should all films be free too then? A film isnt a performance, its packaged onto a media format and re-produced, in exactly the same way a CD is. Same principle, even if the analogy needs a little extra work.

 

I'm not really fussed about him either.

 

I've never said CDs should be free so I'm not sure where the analogy begins, never mind where it's working to. But then a film isn't packaged in the same way as a cd either, because most films are performed 'live' (as in for a paying audience) for a good length of time before getting a release on a high quality format people would be willing to pay for.

[LeazesMag 0]

who's listened to Bob Dylan singing in Russian then

[Tooj 17]

who's listened to Bob Dylan singing in Russian then

Happy Face, probably.

[ChezGiven 0]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Not surprised you believe in attempting to secure price rigging, even at the cost of everyone else's privacy rights.

 

 

When they release downloads at a low enough price they sell a lot more and make a lot more total profit, problem is for most of the entirety of the 20th century recording companies could have their cake and eat it (i.e. price rig and gouge and still sell), and they are still stuck in that mindset. Internet piracy is the closest thing to free market competition the recording industry has ever faced, and they really don't like it.

 

 

Recording companies will do pretty much anything in this cause, be it borderline/actual privacy infringements, or utterly illegal stuff like Sony's automatic root-kit installation from CDs (on windows anyway). As I'm sure you know, Law is all about who can buy it.

 

Thats utterly pathetic of you to try (and i'll explain in a second why you're wrong again) to have a dig at someone because they said what they did for a living, when you dont have balls to say what you do yourself. I would have thought you would steer away from that given the conversations on here. You've dropped down a notch in my estimation. My best mate (who people on here know) is a recording artist, label owner and producer. He estimates 80% os his sales are pirated. I have direct personal experience of piracy affecting artists who are independent and trying to invest in themselves, i doubt you've even met a musician.

 

Privacy rights? I think the right of an artist ranks higher than the right of someone to hide when contravening that right. Muppet.

 

Downloads make more profit? So what? Whats that got to do with it?

[ChezGiven 0]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Nah, I'm not really fussed.

 

If they feel they don't earn enough from touring (which I spend a great deal on over the course of a year) they can get a proper job as far as I'm concerned.

 

What about people like Burial? You cant tour music that is designed for dancefloors that easily.

 

Should all films be free too then? A film isnt a performance, its packaged onto a media format and re-produced, in exactly the same way a CD is. Same principle, even if the analogy needs a little extra work.

 

I'm not really fussed about him either.

 

I've never said CDs should be free so I'm not sure where the analogy begins, never mind where it's working to. But then a film isn't packaged in the same way as a cd either, because most films are performed 'live' (as in for a paying audience) for a good length of time before getting a release on a high quality format people would be willing to pay for.

 

Sorry, i only had a few minutes. The analogy works because its about art and copyrights. I think you know that though. If as soon as a film maker had made his film, proper high quality copies were circling on the internet for free, what do you think would happen to independent cinema? You can pretend you dont agree with this but when people circulate high quality copies of albums on the internet, thats what you're doing.

 

As for CDs being free, the product is the music so its absolutely what you are saying.

[ChezGiven 0]

Also, when 'films' are performed 'live' isnt that called theatre?

[Golden Glory 0]

Thing with this is though. I would never have heard much of 90% of the artists I listen to without having acquired it by less than legal means. I can't afford to buy music, I mean I buy a CD or two a month, I go to 7/8 gigs throughout a year, but I can't help but think stopping this would mean anything other than bad news. Personally, at least. Music is something I rely and depend on, if I could afford to buy music, I would, but I can't. But when I can afford to, I do often buy music and try to see artists I listen to a lot live, paying them in sorts in that way. Piracy gets it out there, I love piracy and how it's opened my eyes.

[Fop 1]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Not surprised you believe in attempting to secure price rigging, even at the cost of everyone else's privacy rights.

 

 

When they release downloads at a low enough price they sell a lot more and make a lot more total profit, problem is for most of the entirety of the 20th century recording companies could have their cake and eat it (i.e. price rig and gouge and still sell), and they are still stuck in that mindset. Internet piracy is the closest thing to free market competition the recording industry has ever faced, and they really don't like it.

 

 

Recording companies will do pretty much anything in this cause, be it borderline/actual privacy infringements, or utterly illegal stuff like Sony's automatic root-kit installation from CDs (on windows anyway). As I'm sure you know, Law is all about who can buy it.

 

Thats utterly pathetic of you to try (and i'll explain in a second why you're wrong again) to have a dig at someone because they said what they did for a living, when you dont have balls to say what you do yourself. I would have thought you would steer away from that given the conversations on here. You've dropped down a notch in my estimation. My best mate (who people on here know) is a recording artist, label owner and producer. He estimates 80% os his sales are pirated. I have direct personal experience of piracy affecting artists who are independent and trying to invest in themselves, i doubt you've even met a musician.

 

Privacy rights? I think the right of an artist ranks higher than the right of someone to hide when contravening that right. Muppet.

 

Downloads make more profit? So what? Whats that got to do with it?

 

 

 

Aye privacy rights, that is the right NOT to have the police (or a 3rd party firm) constantly ransack everyone's house, because they think someone, somewhere may be committing burglary.

 

Which is exactly where this is going.

 

 

 

And again if they drop prices enough piracy "goes away", their turn over increase and so does their overall profit, the recording companies themselves know this and have seen this, but pure GREED is driving them to try and have it both ways - much like the recent EU rights change to 75(?) year? It was trumpeted as a great deal of artist, yet of course most of the royalties gained by extending royalty rights does NOT go to the artist, but the recording company.

 

Piracy is an ironic term, as recording companies were the first media "pirates", or at least organised crime and racketeering.

 

 

 

I'm not surprise you won't recognise it though as there's an awful lot in common with drug company business practice and recording company, you both use a lot of the same cons, tricks and methods to buy laws. That's just how it is.

[ChezGiven 0]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Not surprised you believe in attempting to secure price rigging, even at the cost of everyone else's privacy rights.

 

 

When they release downloads at a low enough price they sell a lot more and make a lot more total profit, problem is for most of the entirety of the 20th century recording companies could have their cake and eat it (i.e. price rig and gouge and still sell), and they are still stuck in that mindset. Internet piracy is the closest thing to free market competition the recording industry has ever faced, and they really don't like it.

 

 

Recording companies will do pretty much anything in this cause, be it borderline/actual privacy infringements, or utterly illegal stuff like Sony's automatic root-kit installation from CDs (on windows anyway). As I'm sure you know, Law is all about who can buy it.

 

Thats utterly pathetic of you to try (and i'll explain in a second why you're wrong again) to have a dig at someone because they said what they did for a living, when you dont have balls to say what you do yourself. I would have thought you would steer away from that given the conversations on here. You've dropped down a notch in my estimation. My best mate (who people on here know) is a recording artist, label owner and producer. He estimates 80% os his sales are pirated. I have direct personal experience of piracy affecting artists who are independent and trying to invest in themselves, i doubt you've even met a musician.

 

Privacy rights? I think the right of an artist ranks higher than the right of someone to hide when contravening that right. Muppet.

 

Downloads make more profit? So what? Whats that got to do with it?

 

 

 

Aye privacy rights, that is the right NOT to have the police (or a 3rd party firm) constantly ransack everyone's house, because they think someone, somewhere may be committing burglary.

 

Which is exactly where this is going.

 

 

 

And again if they drop prices enough piracy "goes away", their turn over increase and so does their overall profit, the recording companies themselves know this and have seen this, but pure GREED is driving them to try and have it both ways - much like the recent EU rights change to 75(?) year? It was trumpeted as a great deal of artist, yet of course most of the royalties gained by extending royalty rights does NOT go to the artist, but the recording company.

 

Piracy is an ironic term, as recording companies were the first media "pirates", or at least organised crime and racketeering.

 

 

 

I'm not surprise you won't recognise it though as there's an awful lot in common with drug company business practice and recording company, you both use a lot of the same cons, tricks and methods to buy laws. That's just how it is.

 

 

You really are a wanker

 

Its called property rights and 'scarcity power' and is how every single private organisation on the planet makes money.

 

If you cant exercise scarcity power, you dont make any money. No business can get round this. To highlight these two industries in a way that tries to make you sound clever without understanding this make you a fucking idiot.

Edited July 24, 2008 by ChezGiven

[Happy Face 29]

Sorry, i only had a few minutes. The analogy works because its about art and copyrights. I think you know that though. If as soon as a film maker had made his film, proper high quality copies were circling on the internet for free, what do you think would happen to independent cinema? You can pretend you dont agree with this but when people circulate high quality copies of albums on the internet, thats what you're doing.

 

As for CDs being free, the product is the music so its absolutely what you are saying.

 

I pay for the music when I pay for a ticket to see it performed. Funny someone should mention Bob Dylan. A man who's barely had a break in touring for 50 years. He's a professional musician who makes a living playing to audiences. I think CD sales should be incidental to the artists compulsion to create and have their 'product' heard.

 

There's different categories though.

 

Stars like Lars Ulrich who do a 20 night tour every 4 years and whine that their multi-million pound lifestyle isn't enough and they want the genuine working man to cough up £12 for an item that costs pennies to produce so he can get his £1 cut from each of the millions of sales it racks up on the back of a multi-million pound blanket advertising campaign that quashes diversity in music.

 

Then there's up and comers who probably deserve a bit more recognition than they're getting. To them I'd say that Time Warner are their biggest enemy, exactly because of the type of promotion described above. Don't you think on a level playing field the most talented performers will make a living? Rather than A&R men deciding what X-factor Barbie doll should be pushed and what shouldn't?

 

Theatrical independent cinema is already as good as dead over here given that the people at City Screen provide every independent cinema in the country with THEIR choices of which films will get limited distribution (more specifically, the final say rests with a single person, programming director Clare Binns). Do you think any film that hasn't had a cinematic run at the whim of this one person has a chance of getting a DVD release? Most 'Independent' film that does get shown is backed by a house within a conglomerate studio such as Warner Village or even Miramax (Disney owned).

 

At least the internet allows any film maker to get anything out there.

 

By the way, I've bought over 500 CD's (over about 15 years that averages more than one a fortnight I think) and had as many DVD's (which I'm gladly starting to replace with high definition versions so they can rake it in again off me).

[Jimbo 133]

I have little sympathy for the music industry, they flex their muscles and threaten file sharing folk who, more than likely have been buying records and tapes and CD's and suchlike for years, yet feel it perfectly acceptable to give away CD's (and DVD's) free on the front of the Mail on Sunday.

[Fop 1]

As a lover of music, i'd have thought you would support artists getting remunerated for their efforts?

 

 

Not surprised you believe in attempting to secure price rigging, even at the cost of everyone else's privacy rights.

 

 

When they release downloads at a low enough price they sell a lot more and make a lot more total profit, problem is for most of the entirety of the 20th century recording companies could have their cake and eat it (i.e. price rig and gouge and still sell), and they are still stuck in that mindset. Internet piracy is the closest thing to free market competition the recording industry has ever faced, and they really don't like it.

 

 

Recording companies will do pretty much anything in this cause, be it borderline/actual privacy infringements, or utterly illegal stuff like Sony's automatic root-kit installation from CDs (on windows anyway). As I'm sure you know, Law is all about who can buy it.

 

Thats utterly pathetic of you to try (and i'll explain in a second why you're wrong again) to have a dig at someone because they said what they did for a living, when you dont have balls to say what you do yourself. I would have thought you would steer away from that given the conversations on here. You've dropped down a notch in my estimation. My best mate (who people on here know) is a recording artist, label owner and producer. He estimates 80% os his sales are pirated. I have direct personal experience of piracy affecting artists who are independent and trying to invest in themselves, i doubt you've even met a musician.

 

Privacy rights? I think the right of an artist ranks higher than the right of someone to hide when contravening that right. Muppet.

 

Downloads make more profit? So what? Whats that got to do with it?

 

 

 

Aye privacy rights, that is the right NOT to have the police (or a 3rd party firm) constantly ransack everyone's house, because they think someone, somewhere may be committing burglary.

 

Which is exactly where this is going.

 

 

 

And again if they drop prices enough piracy "goes away", their turn over increase and so does their overall profit, the recording companies themselves know this and have seen this, but pure GREED is driving them to try and have it both ways - much like the recent EU rights change to 75(?) year? It was trumpeted as a great deal of artist, yet of course most of the royalties gained by extending royalty rights does NOT go to the artist, but the recording company.

 

Piracy is an ironic term, as recording companies were the first media "pirates", or at least organised crime and racketeering.

 

 

 

I'm not surprise you won't recognise it though as there's an awful lot in common with drug company business practice and recording company, you both use a lot of the same cons, tricks and methods to buy laws. That's just how it is.

 

 

You really are a wanker

 

Always a good sign when someone resorts to name calling it's pretty much an admission that I'm completely right.

 

 

 

 

 

Its called property rights and 'scarcity power' and is how every single private organisation on the planet makes money.

 

Again no, that's not how the music (or drugs) industry really works though, there is no free market, and often no competition (until internet piracy).

 

Basically that is rather limited 20th century model thinking, there is no limit to turnover, no resource scarcity (unless you directly create it - but what's the point when you can make more money without it?) with downloadable music.

 

Ironically piracy actually works as a kind of free astroturfing campaign, often generating interest and producing product sales that would never have otherwise occurred.

 

 

 

 

If you cant exercise scarcity power, you dont make any money. No business can get round this. To highlight these two industries in a way that tries to make you sound clever without understanding this make you a fucking idiot.

Rubbish, you can't perhaps make the percentage profits you might like (greed never had limits after all), but there are other ways around it. Harder? Maybe, but then that is why money is used to buy Law and influence, doesn't make it "right" or "moral" however.

 

There's going to be a huge internet privacy backlash sooner or later, much like the 10p tax rate, people don't notice or care about it until it suddenly starts to effect them, then all hell breaks loose.

 

The recording companies are fighting a war they cannot win, and one in which every "victory" alienates even more of the very people whose pockets they want to pick.

[ChezGiven 0]

Righto Fop, I'll let the economics profession know that they got it wrong. You're a fucking wanker for using knowledge of what i do to score points but dont have the bottle to say what you do yourself, thats not a sign of defeat thats a sign that i think you're a wanker.

[ChezGiven 0]

Telling me how the drugs industry works

 

Demented

[The Fish 9369]

I like free things.

[Park Life 71]

Sorry, i only had a few minutes. The analogy works because its about art and copyrights. I think you know that though. If as soon as a film maker had made his film, proper high quality copies were circling on the internet for free, what do you think would happen to independent cinema? You can pretend you dont agree with this but when people circulate high quality copies of albums on the internet, thats what you're doing.

 

As for CDs being free, the product is the music so its absolutely what you are saying.

 

I pay for the music when I pay for a ticket to see it performed. Funny someone should mention Bob Dylan. A man who's barely had a break in touring for 50 years. He's a professional musician who makes a living playing to audiences. I think CD sales should be incidental to the artists compulsion to create and have their 'product' heard.

 

There's different categories though.

 

Stars like Lars Ulrich who do a 20 night tour every 4 years and whine that their multi-million pound lifestyle isn't enough and they want the genuine working man to cough up £12 for an item that costs pennies to produce so he can get his £1 cut from each of the millions of sales it racks up on the back of a multi-million pound blanket advertising campaign that quashes diversity in music.

 

Then there's up and comers who probably deserve a bit more recognition than they're getting. To them I'd say that Time Warner are their biggest enemy, exactly because of the type of promotion described above. Don't you think on a level playing field the most talented performers will make a living? Rather than A&R men deciding what X-factor Barbie doll should be pushed and what shouldn't?

 

Theatrical independent cinema is already as good as dead over here given that the people at City Screen provide every independent cinema in the country with THEIR choices of which films will get limited distribution (more specifically, the final say rests with a single person, programming director Clare Binns). Do you think any film that hasn't had a cinematic run at the whim of this one person has a chance of getting a DVD release? Most 'Independent' film that does get shown is backed by a house within a conglomerate studio such as Warner Village or even Miramax (Disney owned).

 

At least the internet allows any film maker to get anything out there.

 

By the way, I've bought over 500 CD's (over about 15 years that averages more than one a fortnight I think) and had as many DVD's (which I'm gladly starting to replace with high definition versions so they can rake it in again off me).

 

I've got binbags full of the sodding things.

[Park Life 71]

Thing with this is though. I would never have heard much of 90% of the artists I listen to without having acquired it by less than legal means. I can't afford to buy music, I mean I buy a CD or two a month, I go to 7/8 gigs throughout a year, but I can't help but think stopping this would mean anything other than bad news. Personally, at least. Music is something I rely and depend on, if I could afford to buy music, I would, but I can't. But when I can afford to, I do often buy music and try to see artists I listen to a lot live, paying them in sorts in that way. Piracy gets it out there, I love piracy and how it's opened my eyes.

 

Good point regarding familiarisation of new artists.

[ChezGiven 0]

Sorry, i only had a few minutes. The analogy works because its about art and copyrights. I think you know that though. If as soon as a film maker had made his film, proper high quality copies were circling on the internet for free, what do you think would happen to independent cinema? You can pretend you dont agree with this but when people circulate high quality copies of albums on the internet, thats what you're doing.

 

As for CDs being free, the product is the music so its absolutely what you are saying.

 

I pay for the music when I pay for a ticket to see it performed. Funny someone should mention Bob Dylan. A man who's barely had a break in touring for 50 years. He's a professional musician who makes a living playing to audiences. I think CD sales should be incidental to the artists compulsion to create and have their 'product' heard.

 

There's different categories though.

 

Stars like Lars Ulrich who do a 20 night tour every 4 years and whine that their multi-million pound lifestyle isn't enough and they want the genuine working man to cough up £12 for an item that costs pennies to produce so he can get his £1 cut from each of the millions of sales it racks up on the back of a multi-million pound blanket advertising campaign that quashes diversity in music.

 

Then there's up and comers who probably deserve a bit more recognition than they're getting. To them I'd say that Time Warner are their biggest enemy, exactly because of the type of promotion described above. Don't you think on a level playing field the most talented performers will make a living? Rather than A&R men deciding what X-factor Barbie doll should be pushed and what shouldn't?

 

Theatrical independent cinema is already as good as dead over here given that the people at City Screen provide every independent cinema in the country with THEIR choices of which films will get limited distribution (more specifically, the final say rests with a single person, programming director Clare Binns). Do you think any film that hasn't had a cinematic run at the whim of this one person has a chance of getting a DVD release? Most 'Independent' film that does get shown is backed by a house within a conglomerate studio such as Warner Village or even Miramax (Disney owned).

 

At least the internet allows any film maker to get anything out there.

 

By the way, I've bought over 500 CD's (over about 15 years that averages more than one a fortnight I think) and had as many DVD's (which I'm gladly starting to replace with high definition versions so they can rake it in again off me).

 

Lars Ulrich spends time and his creativity on the product, the pennies it costs to make (or the marginal cost of the CD) is very low. Thats irrelevant though, what the marginal cost to NUFC of a seat in the stadium? £0. Is that what the price should reflect?

 

You also seem to assume that its just major labels that are affected. That is wrong.

 

The point about cinema is that if every single film was available free to download it would be difficult for film-makers to make money and produce such (i hear) stunning films like TDK. They hold their scarcity power over these films, thus forcing you to pay to see them, thus helping them invest in more films.

 

If you apply what has happened to the music industry elsewhere the economic system would collapse.

[Tooj 17]

Sorry, i only had a few minutes. The analogy works because its about art and copyrights. I think you know that though. If as soon as a film maker had made his film, proper high quality copies were circling on the internet for free, what do you think would happen to independent cinema? You can pretend you dont agree with this but when people circulate high quality copies of albums on the internet, thats what you're doing.

 

As for CDs being free, the product is the music so its absolutely what you are saying.

 

I pay for the music when I pay for a ticket to see it performed. Funny someone should mention Bob Dylan. A man who's barely had a break in touring for 50 years. He's a professional musician who makes a living playing to audiences. I think CD sales should be incidental to the artists compulsion to create and have their 'product' heard.

 

There's different categories though.

 

Stars like Lars Ulrich who do a 20 night tour every 4 years and whine that their multi-million pound lifestyle isn't enough and they want the genuine working man to cough up £12 for an item that costs pennies to produce so he can get his £1 cut from each of the millions of sales it racks up on the back of a multi-million pound blanket advertising campaign that quashes diversity in music.

 

Then there's up and comers who probably deserve a bit more recognition than they're getting. To them I'd say that Time Warner are their biggest enemy, exactly because of the type of promotion described above. Don't you think on a level playing field the most talented performers will make a living? Rather than A&R men deciding what X-factor Barbie doll should be pushed and what shouldn't?

 

Theatrical independent cinema is already as good as dead over here given that the people at City Screen provide every independent cinema in the country with THEIR choices of which films will get limited distribution (more specifically, the final say rests with a single person, programming director Clare Binns). Do you think any film that hasn't had a cinematic run at the whim of this one person has a chance of getting a DVD release? Most 'Independent' film that does get shown is backed by a house within a conglomerate studio such as Warner Village or even Miramax (Disney owned).

 

At least the internet allows any film maker to get anything out there.

 

By the way, I've bought over 500 CD's (over about 15 years that averages more than one a fortnight I think) and had as many DVD's (which I'm gladly starting to replace with high definition versions so they can rake it in again off me).

 

Lars Ulrich spends time and his creativity on the product, the pennies it costs to make (or the marginal cost of the CD) is very low. Thats irrelevant though, what the marginal cost to NUFC of a seat in the stadium? £0. Is that what the price should reflect?

 

You also seem to assume that its just major labels that are affected. That is wrong.

 

The point about cinema is that if every single film was available free to download it would be difficult for film-makers to make money and produce such (i hear) stunning films like TDK. They hold their scarcity power over these films, thus forcing you to pay to see them, thus helping them invest in more films.

 

If you apply what has happened to the music industry elsewhere the economic system would collapse.

[The Fish 9369]

Sorry, i only had a few minutes. The analogy works because its about art and copyrights. I think you know that though. If as soon as a film maker had made his film, proper high quality copies were circling on the internet for free, what do you think would happen to independent cinema? You can pretend you dont agree with this but when people circulate high quality copies of albums on the internet, thats what you're doing.

 

As for CDs being free, the product is the music so its absolutely what you are saying.

 

I pay for the music when I pay for a ticket to see it performed. Funny someone should mention Bob Dylan. A man who's barely had a break in touring for 50 years. He's a professional musician who makes a living playing to audiences. I think CD sales should be incidental to the artists compulsion to create and have their 'product' heard.

 

There's different categories though.

 

Stars like Lars Ulrich who do a 20 night tour every 4 years and whine that their multi-million pound lifestyle isn't enough and they want the genuine working man to cough up £12 for an item that costs pennies to produce so he can get his £1 cut from each of the millions of sales it racks up on the back of a multi-million pound blanket advertising campaign that quashes diversity in music.

 

Then there's up and comers who probably deserve a bit more recognition than they're getting. To them I'd say that Time Warner are their biggest enemy, exactly because of the type of promotion described above. Don't you think on a level playing field the most talented performers will make a living? Rather than A&R men deciding what X-factor Barbie doll should be pushed and what shouldn't?

 

Theatrical independent cinema is already as good as dead over here given that the people at City Screen provide every independent cinema in the country with THEIR choices of which films will get limited distribution (more specifically, the final say rests with a single person, programming director Clare Binns). Do you think any film that hasn't had a cinematic run at the whim of this one person has a chance of getting a DVD release? Most 'Independent' film that does get shown is backed by a house within a conglomerate studio such as Warner Village or even Miramax (Disney owned).

 

At least the internet allows any film maker to get anything out there.

 

By the way, I've bought over 500 CD's (over about 15 years that averages more than one a fortnight I think) and had as many DVD's (which I'm gladly starting to replace with high definition versions so they can rake it in again off me).

 

Lars Ulrich spends time and his creativity on the product, the pennies it costs to make (or the marginal cost of the CD) is very low. Thats irrelevant though, what the marginal cost to NUFC of a seat in the stadium? £0. Is that what the price should reflect?

 

You also seem to assume that its just major labels that are affected. That is wrong.

 

The point about cinema is that if every single film was available free to download it would be difficult for film-makers to make money and produce such (i hear) stunning films like TDK. They hold their scarcity power over these films, thus forcing you to pay to see them, thus helping them invest in more films.

 

If you apply what has happened to the music industry elsewhere the economic system would collapse.

 

 

 

You gonna plague every thread?

Edited July 24, 2008 by The Fish