376 replies to this topic

[GSpot]

You either have poor comprehension skills or are trolling.. which is it?

I have excellent comprehension skills. Millsy is spot on. And just for the record, I don't Dl.

[CJCC67]

so how are my two sentences different:
It is lost revenue when it's downloaded and played. It is not lost revenue when it is purchased,

We are talking about illegal downloads do i need to spell out that means they haven't been paid for?

Edited by CJCC67, 14 February 2012 - 02:18 PM.

[LogicprObe]

I've got mates that record CDs in a 'small' home studio, so the cost isn't a big factor. And if they get on u-tube and get 'hits' then that all goes along with increasing 'exposure' as well as people getting their music out there in any way.

Sure.........I build computers for plenty of them............still not cheap to set up (unless you use pirated software etc).
A good job can be done but it's not like churning out doof doof in your bedroom.

[wolster]

Regarding downloading music by artists that are deceased, surely their surviving family would inherit and have the right to royalties.

[LogicprObe]

Regarding downloading music by artists that are deceased, surely their surviving family would inherit and have the right to royalties.

They do until the copyright runs out.

70 years now.

[CJCC67]

can the copyright be reapplied?

[LogicprObe]

can the copyright be reapplied?

I think it has been successful for some books.
Can't research now................I should be doing my taxes etc.

[frankn]

I think it has been successful for some books.
Can't research now................I should be doing my taxes etc.

From : http://www.copyright.../browse-by-a-z/

Inheriting the rights

Performersʼ reproduction and communication rights cannot be bought, sold or transferred.
However, it seems that they may pass to a performerʼs beneficiaries after the performerʼs death.
For example, Peter Sellersʼ estate successfully brought an action under UK performersʼ protection

legislation in relation to the use of out-takes from Pink Panther movies to make a new film.
It can be different for each country

Copyright protection is automatic

You do not apply for copyright in Australia, and there is no system of registration here. Nor are
there any forms to fill in, or fees to be paid.
You do not need to publish your work, put a copyright notice on it, or do anything else before your
work is covered by copyright – the protection is free and automatic, from the time a work is first
written down or recorded in some way. For example, as soon as a poem is written, or a song is

recorded, it is protected.

How long does copyright last?

Until 1 January 2005, copyright generally lasted for the life of the relevant creator plus 50 years.
There were various exceptions to this rule, including:
• where a work was not published, performed or broadcast during a creatorʼs lifetime; and

• where something was published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the identity of the
creator couldnʼt reasonably be ascertained.
(In each of these cases, copyright lasted for 50 years from the end of the year the work was, with
permission, first published, performed or broadcast.)
Under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Australia agreed to extend the general
duration of copyright. As a result, the rules now are that copyright generally lasts for the life of the
creator plus 70 years and where duration depends on year of publication, it lasts until 70 years
after it is first published.
The Free Trade Agreement did not, however, include any obligation to revive copyright if copyright
had already expired. This means that if, under the old rules, copyright had already expired by 1
January 2005, it stays expired and the material can be used freely under Australian law.

Note, however, that the duration of copyright varies from country to country.

[LogicprObe]

Thanks frankn.

[surfpurple]

Here's one I wrote for the 'Cool and Laidback' thread!

http://soundcloud.co...ry-ducaucas-too

When you say 'wrote' ?

[surfpurple]

Sure.........I build computers for plenty of them............still not cheap to set up (unless you use pirated software etc).
A good job can be done but it's not like churning out doof doof in your bedroom.

Yes but the people that have these 'home studios' are using their set-ups for many bands and artists. They aren't looking for a big financial gain, it's just their side-line!

[LogicprObe]

When you say 'wrote' ?

Well, I walked into my mate's studio to fix something or other on his computer (I reckon it's a ruse to get me around there) and after I had sorted whatever it was he says, I've got this bass loop, can you do something with it?
So I laid down the rhythm guitar in one take and doodled lead ideas all the way through twice. Took about an hour including a few practice runs.
So, the lead track is really the best of two tracks (but mainly one, by memory .....with a bit of the other)............then he got his mate Harry around (who's a great singer) and put some vocal on it before he got stoned (then he's not a very good singer).

Next I know, he calls me up and says he's finished our track!
(after about a week of tooling it)
So, that's fine until he calls me again because he lost the original bass loop!
I go around.......I can't find it either because all his files have been 'organised'........it's gone, so then we had to make another.
Now THAT took some time..........and hence, on occasions it sounds a little bit out of time.............but it's OK for a demo.

[surfpurple]

You got some great friends to work with!!!!!

[davidsss]

For the record I was paraphrasing Drizt for clarification,
I disagree with the statement. Perhaps you could quote me in the correct context,
It. It is lost revenue when it's downloaded and played. It is not lost revenue when it is purchased, similarly no revenue is lost if it is not illegally downloaded in the first place
That there is no intention to pay, is the issue whatever model you proprose.
Torrents are all about avoiding paying.
Maybe another thread would be appropriate for your side discussion.

How is it lost revenue when there was never any intention to purchase? That's like saying it is lost revenue when you hear a song playing from someone's car stereo when only the car owner ever paid for the music. I'm sorry, but this is silly, no intent to purchase, no lost revenue.

I'll go even further though. If you prevent people from hearing your music then you really do have potential lost revenue. The example given before of a kid who downloads tracks with no intention of purchasing has not deprived anyone of any revenue they ever had a chance of getting. But, when they get older and earn an income, they are far more likely to pursue an interest in music and spend money on purchasing music. How many of us got started taping our mates' records?

DS

[surfpurple]

Yes ! .

[millsy]

so how are my two sentences different:
It is lost revenue when it's downloaded and played. It is not lost revenue when it is purchased,

We are talking about illegal downloads do i need to spell out that means they haven't been paid for?

You are still missing my point.
You say, 'music which is downloaded and played is a lost profit'.
I disagree. Just because music is downloaded and played does not imply lost profit in the slightest. No one has lost money by a digital work being copied and played elsewhere. The loss come about if a purchase would have been made, but the existence of the digital file means that his purchase will no longer occur.

I'm not trolling, I just find your black and white take on the matter to be entirely ridiculous. You seem to visualise a digital copy as being a CD someone has stolen from a store and played. Which is not the case as I illustrate in my analogy with copying the car above.

If you really think I am trolling, I really cannot be any more simplistic on this point, and you'll just have to accept what I write or continue believing what you do. I really hope you can at least understand my point of view though, because your mode of thinking is inherently flawed and goes totally against the grain of what is happening in the world. If you want to argue ethics or morality of pirating music go ahead, but to say that every download is a lost sale is just flat out incorrect, I'm sorry.

You're entitled to keep thinking as you are, that's the beauty of freedom of speech. But, if you genuinely believe what you're saying is the case, you have a very odd world view, that the majority of the human race does not share. Hell I think even the RIAA/MPAA have changed their view that every download is a lost sale.

Perhaps a more prudent question is to ask, what is your definition of a lost sale? Lost revenue? What causes these? Perhaps that's where the very strong difference of opinion comes from.

Edited by millsy, 14 February 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[houdinifangs]

To be fair I think most of us here are freaks. We are often collectors whereby 'sampling' downloads is a legitimate way to experience different music before purchasing. We tend to spend much more than the average bear on music and will even buy multiple copies of the same album in different formats, pressings, remasterings etc. It might be fair to say that SNA users are not taking revenue away from the music industry and that rather how we 'sample' in fact creates revenue. But I don't think is a good representation of all music consumers. I think that for many the attitude of "why pay when you can get it for free" is alarmingly common. I know more people who think paying for music is for "idiots" and never pay for music - SNA members excluded. Therefore in these cases I think it is fair to say revenue has been lost.

[LogicprObe]

I have friends who prefer to pay for private torrent sites than pay for actual products.
I think it's a mindset that the multinationals have had it too good for too long.
I have other friends who download stuff but have walls of discs and boxed sets.
In some cases, we are getting better products because they have had to innovate.

[firefly0071]

To be fair I think most of us here are freaks. We are often collectors whereby 'sampling' downloads is a legitimate way to experience different music before purchasing. We tend to spend much more than the average bear on music and will even buy multiple copies of the same album in different formats, pressings, remasterings etc. It might be fair to say that SNA users are not taking revenue away from the music industry and that rather how we 'sample' in fact creates revenue. But I don't think is a good representation of all music consumers. I think that for many the attitude of "why pay when you can get it for free" is alarmingly common. I know more people who think paying for music is for "idiots" and never pay for music - SNA members excluded. Therefore in these cases I think it is fair to say revenue has been lost.

Yes we are different since we appreciate music more and willing to spend. Whether it is CD, vinyl, SACD or 24 bit downloads (paid).

Many arguments said about this topic.

I play video games and Sony has a handheld PSP where one can purchase games legitimately or illegally via Torrent sites. A game called Final Fantasy VII Crisis Core was released as a demo (free) and a full version to buy. 4 million plus ILLEGAL downloads of this game on torrent sites.

If people wanted to sample (and no revenue loss) there was the demo version (play about 30 minutes against a 20 hour game). But the general public wanted it free.

Overall the music and digital content industry (film, TV shows and video games) are affected by illegal downloads.

People on SNA, at least when it comes to music, are seemingly the more honest consumer.

[CJCC67]

David,
in repsonse to your post but not directed at you ( 'you, in this case is the royal you');

Of course listening to a cd doesn't infringe anything by your criteria or mine, only when you copy it. Seems like a frivolous point

Copyright prevents you from having an unauthorised duplicated copy or broadcasting by whichever means you obtain it. Currently this means you must pay for it. The copyright laws exist to support this. becasue you must pay for it, any illegal copy deprives the owners of the material their entitled income. You have their copyright protected material, they haven't received the income, they don't have it, they have lost it. It is that black and white.

The material is copyright not the physical media so there is no difference between a cd and a file in the eyes of the law whether you disagree or not is irrelevant.
Perhaps someone with some legal experience can correct my legal understanding if it is incorrect, otherwise you don't have a sound legal arguement.
I'm interested to hear what you would argue against the legal points were you infront of a judge defending a piracy charge.

We all have our own opinions on how it should be and to what extent we will bend the rules.
I'm not arguing those and in fact I don't particularly care that much after all they are only opinions and not facts and everyone has their own.
Being your own opinion, doesn't give it more strength than someone else's opinion , only the holder of that opinion believes so.
I am only restating facts when you copy files you are breaking the law and depriving artists of revenue that the law currently says they are entiltled to.
It's not groundbreaking but seems to be controversial for some reason.
I can only guess it has to do with some sort of guilt association with the reality of what people are doing or some other fluff.
Of course i am happy to be corrected on legal grounds but an betting quite bored with opinions in contrast with facts.
I know what I am doing when I download a flac.
I clear my conscience when I purchase it. My conscience isn't clear if i play discs or files i haven't purchased.

Edited by CJCC67, 15 February 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[millsy]

Could you find any proof of the fact that downloading a copy of an album immediately deprives them of revenue?
Apart from that point, I think you're making total sense, and I admire that you're willing to take a gamble with music in modern times, it's very much hit and miss.
I don't have enough money to spend on music to be as cavalier myself (another reason I like buying older vinyl/cd's, they generally sound pretty good!)
I apologise if I come across as stubborn, but I'm a fan of facts and I just haven't seen anything that supports that particular fact

[CJCC67]

I'm confused,
if you don't buy an album becasue you have downloaded there's no cash to them for that one !! if you buy it later.....cash to them later!! between downloading and purchsing it's illegal, infact you still have an illegal copy even though you have purchased a legimate one. Only when you purchase the legimate copy does anyone receive money.

Interestingly, or not I mainly use to flacs to try out older jazz lps before trying to locate a good vinyl copy.

[millsy]

I'm confused,
if you don't buy an album becasue you have downloaded there's no cash to them for that one !! if you buy it later.....cash to them later!! between downloading and purchsing it's illegal, infact you still have an illegal copy even though you have purchased a legimate one. Only when you purchase the legimate copy does anyone receive money.

Interestingly, or not I mainly use to flacs to try out older jazz lps before trying to locate a good vinyl copy.

You're saying 'that one' like it's the only copy of the album though. As you've said, you'll listen to tracks before picking up a vinyl copy.

Now let's assume every person downloading music has impeccable morals (this isn't the case but just work with me here), and they genuinely download music with the intent to evaluate it and buy it if they like it.
Just because they haven't paid for it yet, doesn't mean that they have no intention to. Think of it as borrowing a CD off a friend to listen to, and if you like it going out and buying it yourself.

Obviously people with less than impeccable morals exist (well that's debatable, morality and ethics are subjective, they may not see any wrongs being done, but this is a different discussion).

You're perfectly right it's illegal, but this thread has never been about the legality of downloading music. I don't think anyone here would argue that it's legal. The 'is it right or not' question to me boils down to (for my set of ethics), whether there is intent to purchase it after downloading it or not.

[CJCC67]

glad to see we have found the common ground. i'd say the intention to purchase isn't known at the download stage. It's only a possibility. the moral issue as i see it is when you play it after you decider you like it without then purchasing it. If you don't like it and don't intend to buy it you have broken the law but of course there isn't any reveue lost as you wont ever buy it.
The motive is the key to the morality debate this was made and agreed very early in this thread. I have only been discussuing the legality side which i did state a number of times. i made the satement to that effect at post 186

Edited by CJCC67, 15 February 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[millsy]

glad to see we have found the common ground. i'd say the intention to purchase isn't known at the download stage. It's only a possibility. the moral issue as i see it is when you play it after you decider you like it without then purchasing it. If you don't like it and don't intend to buy it you have broken the law but of course there isn't any reveue lost as you wont ever buy it.
The motive is the key to the morality debate this was made and agreed very early in this thread. I have only been discussuing the legality side which i did state a number of times. i made the satement to that effect at post 186

I suppose the problem is the legality side of things isn't really the purpose of this thread. That's pretty black and white. I'd be interested to see what'd happen if someone pirated an album, liked it, bought it, and was sued later on down the track for the original breach of law.

[Dustin]

Think of it as borrowing a CD off a friend to listen to, and if you like it going out and buying it yourself.

Yep, OK . . but what about this.

'Back in the day' we used to copy LP's onto a cassette. If I recall, the record labels were up in arms about this and even tried to have the recording mechanism on cassette decks disabled. Their argument was that we were in breach of copyright and this was a big issue at the time.

Some argued the reason they made copies was to keep the LP in pristine condition and extend it's life . . . plus they were also able to use the cassette in the car. Some people also taped LP's for friends; thus a limited sharing methodology was borne.

One might accept a cassette copy because it was either requested or it was offered.
With downloaded music, that part of the 'transaction' isn't in play any more.

[surfpurple]

Yep, OK . . but what about this.

'Back in the day' we used to copy LP's onto a cassette. If I recall, the record labels were up in arms about this and even tried to have the recording mechanism on cassette decks disabled. Their argument was that we were in breach of copyright and this was a big issue at the time.

Some argued the reason they made copies was to keep the LP in pristine condition and extend it's life . . . plus they were also able to use the cassette in the car. Some people also taped LP's for friends; thus a limited sharing methodology was borne.

One might accept a cassette copy because it was either requested or it was offered.
With downloaded music, that part of the 'transaction' isn't in play any more.

+1.

As I said before, we are in a 'new' age and we are essentially doing the same thing (sampling music-without paying for it up front).

We are just doing it in a 'different' way now.

[Phill451]

Yep, OK . . but what about this.

'Back in the day' we used to copy LP's onto a cassette. If I recall, the record labels were up in arms about this and even tried to have the recording mechanism on cassette decks disabled. Their argument was that we were in breach of copyright and this was a big issue at the time.

Some argued the reason they made copies was to keep the LP in pristine condition and extend it's life . . . plus they were also able to use the cassette in the car. Some people also taped LP's for friends; thus a limited sharing methodology was borne.

One might accept a cassette copy because it was either requested or it was offered.
With downloaded music, that part of the 'transaction' isn't in play any more.

What ended up happening was that manufacturers of audio cassettes paid a percentage royalty for every tape sold to the record industry. A bit harder to do when the duplication is on a massive scale and run by organised crime.

[LogicprObe]

+1.

As I said before, we are in a 'new' age and we are essentially doing the same thing (sampling music-without paying for it up front).

We are just doing it in a 'different' way now.

The scale is incomparable.

[proftournesol]

The scale is incomparable.

I dunno, it's easier to measure now but what do you think all those blank cassettes were used for? Almost the whole compact cassette industry supported pirating music.

[Peter the Greek]

Cant be bothers reading all 12 pages of this thread....not sure if it was mentioned., I read in the paper on the weekend:

Pirate Bay are going to remeve all files with more than 10 people sharing

[manchu]

back to the original question, Is it ok to download? there are a few instances when I might feel better about downloading, if I downloaded

- I've bought a copy before, in any format. Maybe I've bought it on cassette.. the cd has been damaged.
- something that's been shown on free to air tv.
- a band that I've seen live. this is stretching it...but I'd argue that if I bought the cd I couldn't afford to go to the gig.

Has this point been raised before? Is it OK to buy 2nd hand? isn't that also depriving the artist (record company) of possible revenue? True that it was originally bought new...but the first buyer has probably copied and sold it on. It's the same end result as downloading, but it just takes a lot longer.

[gainphile]

I'll download and pay what I like. But even downloading is now too cumbersome, hence now I simply listen to streaming music (Grooveshark, 3MBS, some german radio station, etc.). I haven't downloaded anything for months!

It will be a matter of time when streaming reaches CD quality, then hires.... The internet is the NEW RADIO

[surfpurple]

The scale is incomparable.

But what is 'comparable' in reality?

A different 'day', a different 'age', the times are a changing! AND rapidly.

[Jake]

The big problem with all this downloading is that you are continuing to feed the beast, no matter what your intentions are regarding buying the music later. If you download, you keep the system alive.

Legal streaming services are definitely the way of the future, and hopefully the death of torrents.

[surfpurple]

I dunno, it's easier to measure now but what do you think all those blank cassettes were used for? Almost the whole compact cassette industry supported pirating music.

That's a very good point. If we really want to 'compare' then there is a lot of various situations that would need to be examined (if we want to get all 'anal' about it).

[surfpurple]

The big problem with all this downloading is that you are continuing to feed the beast, no matter what your intentions are regarding buying the music later. If you download, you keep the system alive.

Legal streaming services are definitely the way of the future, and hopefully the death of torrents.

Like I have said before, we are in a 'new' age and this will only get bigger! Us oldies (and the industry as a whole) have to get up to speed with all this. "Illegalising torrents" is a losing battle.

In the 'computer age' it is not even a 'bandaid' solution to the problem. Once music started appearing on the 'web' the whole game changed.

Like it or not, legal or not, ethics or not, the 'goalposts' have moved!

We have ALL recorded music on to a 'cassette' and 'swapped' music with friends so we are ALL hypocrites to an extent. It's just that people are doing it in a different way in this 'age'. AND it wont go away and simply 'outlawing' the practice won't do jack crap!

[LogicprObe]

But what is 'comparable' in reality?

A different 'day', a different 'age', the times are a changing! AND rapidly.

In the old days, copying a record to a cassette took time...........one at a time...........time after time..........

Now, just one copy on the net can be copied/downloaded millions of times an hour.

[Drizt]

Like I have said before, we are in a 'new' age and this will only get bigger! Us oldies (and the industry as a whole) have to get up to speed with all this. "Illegalising torrents" is a losing battle.

In the 'computer age' it is not even a 'bandaid' solution to the problem. Once music started appearing on the 'web' the whole game changed.

Like it or not, legal or not, ethics or not, the 'goalposts' have moved!

We have ALL recorded music on to a 'cassette' and 'swapped' music with friends so we are ALL hypocrites to an extent. It's just that people are doing it in a different way in this 'age'. AND it wont go away and simply 'outlawing' the practice won't do jack crap!

three cheers for a realist.

[LogicprObe]

Sure, I still make copies for friends...................but nowhere near the numbers of CDs I buy.

[Peter the Greek]

The internet is the NEW RADIO

Globally the uptake of streaming services seems to have flatlined, content is key here. New content can only be made with money, from advertising. So at the end of the day, the commercial radio stations, with there move into digital and other streaming forms, will likely come out on top......well thats what PwC are saying in their Media Outlook

Arbitron & Edison Research has also produced some interesting data on the issue

[surfpurple]

In the old days, copying a record to a cassette took time...........one at a time...........time after time..........

Now, just one copy on the net can be copied/downloaded millions of times an hour.

I do see your point. I am just saying that it is still 'copying' (but just in a different way), in regards to downloading for 'yourself'.

BUT I suppose when you talk 'torrents', then you are right that it can be copied 'millions of times an hour'. And that IS a problem, but we have ALL embraced the 'computer age' so these are the things we have to deal with. The computer and 'web' have transformed almost every way we do things in the world today and 'torrents' are just another part of the 'age'. Good for some, Bad for others. I am not saying that it is OK, but it's reality that has evolved in the computer world (along with many other changes).

I still go back to my argument the we have ALL copied music and swapped at some stage, so we shouldn't all be so 'anal' about torrents if we use them in a 'good' way. (as a tool so to speak to help 'discover' and potentially 'buy' new music that would otherwise pass us by) And by that I mean in a way that we think is personally OK to the individual. (legalities aside).

I know people are going to say 'there is no good way' etc etc. but we all thought there was a 'good' way of copying a LP to a cassette!

[turntable]

NO it is not

[gainphile]

BUT I suppose when you talk 'torrents', then you are right that it can be copied 'millions of times an hour'. And that IS a problem, but we have ALL embraced the 'computer age' so these are the things we have to deal with. The computer and 'web' have transformed almost every way we do things in the world today and 'torrents' are just another part of the 'age'.

Good or bad has nothing to do with it. It's an economics of abundance.




If I can "print" Cars, then the job of manufacturing them would dissapear. Perhaps replaced by car designing and download a plan for $15

[valvelover]

I know people are going to say 'there is no good way' etc etc. but we all thought there was a 'good' way of copying a LP to a cassette!

The difference, and this is what people fail to realise, is that copying a LP to cassette is just copying. A torrent is copying AND distributing. And that is the *real* issue. Let's turn off all seeding in torrents and see how far it goes ;-)

Think of it like the difference between doing drugs, and doing drugs and selling them (re-distribution). A judge will generally frown more heavily upon the latter than the former.

Dave