Stealing music and software?

[deeaa]

Hey guys,

What's your take on leeching music MP3's and software off the net? Do you still buy CD's etc?

I believe the CD and DVD and soon even BluRay are dead or dying fast. I have barely touched a CD in a few years and only used digital stuff. Most of my video is played off HD player direct to TV screen (bluray movies) or ordered pay-per-view from online video rental store also direct to TV. MP3's also off the HD player and some harddisks or an iPod, or over the home network from some of my computers over TVersity or Zune for instance,or via XBox360.

I believe in digital age the trend is away from owning anything physical to just basically renting stuff.

I mean, I used to have almost 1000 CD's. Now they are in the basement waiting to be thrown out for good. I have a collection of some 600 DVD's time has rendered useless, because who wants to watch DVD quality film in this day and age. It just makes no sense any more to actually own the physical versions because digital you can always get better quality etc. next year and pretty much everything can soon be just streamed.

And what a relief it is to not have to allocate livingroom space for DVD's and CD's etc...just need a couple simple digital net boxes or digital player boxes and the Internet/home wireless network.

Also my TV recordings all play from the internet service instead of a set-top recorder...I have one of those as well but never use it no more since I can play anything from the web, store my timeshifts to web just like tivo, and there's room for thousands of hours of TV programs and I can also control the whole shebang from my cellular or browser or the TV remote, whichever I want.

Now, I don't think stealing is OK or anything...but, the industry really really needs to come up with USABLE and beneficial services and quick.

What I'd like is a service I pay for, like, say 10 bucks a month, and can access any music I want or any movies I want in high quality, 320MP3 or full-HD video, and download it without any copy protection to any device I want. Well I could pay more for it too, say up to 30 bucks a month.

There is NO way I'd buy more than 30 bucks worth of media a month anyway, so the music/film industry would get more money from me than it would otherwise, even if some day I'd download 10 films or whatever. It's not away from anything.

Same with software.

I mean, the industry is fighting a losing battle. People these days, there's 100 megabit internet lines and you can download basically any CD ever released in one minute flat off illegal sites, @320 and no copy protection. It's so much easier than having to buy off iTunes for instance, pay with the creditcard, handle the transactions and such, and then not be able to listen to it with anything BUT iTunes or iPod...crazy.

Same with software. Say you want some high-end video suite...buy it, and you have to get this DVD which can break etc. and scratch, you need this dongle and an USB slot for it, and whatnot, and installing with all the copy protection is a real ***** etc...and it can take days to get the software in the first place...and it costs hundreds if not thousands. Yet off the net you can leech the same thing in less than 10 minutes and nevermind dongles or any hassle, just be using it in 20 flat.

What I'm trying to say, as long as the industry is making it 10 times harder to buy the stuff than steal it and 10 times more expensive and 10 times worse value and 10 times more restricted about how you can use the stuff...they are losing. If they took a full turn and offered their stuff EASILY and with a monthly fee for most anything, they'd make MORE money and there would be no need for illegal activities no more.

People have ALWAYS copied music and software, be it off C-cassettes or with floppy disks and via mail, they can't kill it, and in many places like Finland and Sweden etc. it's also perfectly legal to use such stuff as long as it's not for business purposes, albeit it's hazy about being a part of distribution in it. Hell we even pay music taxes for empty CD's and memory sticks and soon even music cell phones, because the government fully knows they will be used to store copied music anyway and thus we pay the 'copy tax' on those.

I have bought every single MS OS since DOS 6.22 for instance and I have also bought several other software like Cubase etc. and use a lot of freeware...but for instance, if I want to play Call of Duty 4 also on Xbox as well as PC, is it really sensible I need to buy it for both platforms at, what, 130 bucks altogether? I tell you, it's very tempting to buy it for Xbox and just leech for pc.

Or Doom - I have DooM for every single platform I own and it can be had from my PC's to Xbox to my cellular even...although I never play it any more...was there any sense to really buy it for those? Not really, but I did. Could have much easier just leech 'em.

Very often it's much better just leech some game and play it, if you like it after 15 minutes, then buy it...mostly it's crap.

Just in a few weeks I've bought for Xbox GTA IV, Oblivion, MAss Effect, Trials, FiFa, and a few others...and I believe Trials is the ONLY one I will end up ever playing more than minutes or a few hours in some cases.

Still I paid quite a sum for them, only to find out I shouldn't have.

Yep, the music/software/film industries better come up with some novel ideas on how to distribute and sell their stuff or they will lose the battle for good.

 

[ibanezjunkie]

leeching stuff? sure i do it occasionally.

im still inundated by DVDs, CDs and disc wallets though.

 

[Rampant]

Firstly, you have an outstanding point about the difficulty as well as the cost of obtaining and using legal copyright material.

You're absolutely, 100%, hits-nail-square-on-the-head correct to say that the industry MUST take this seriously and make it EASIER and MORE CONVENIENT to obtain and use legal products.


Secondly, I still MUCH PREFER to own a CD, than download mp3, (whether that be bought-and-paid-for legal or otherwise!)

I have never used a share site or illegally downloaded music.
What I have done, though is borrow friends' CDs and rip them to my collection... STILL, however, I really do prefer to own the actual CD item. And in that, I'm probably in the minority...

I know people say that physical items can be lost/scratched/damaged, etc, but electronic copies can also be corrupted/wiped/deleted by accident, so owning the CD and ripping to mp3 at max bit-rate is my preffered way. That way I know I'm probably getting the best quality mp3 for my iPod. I know that a lot of the music being sold out there is of poor quality - either low bit-rate, or bit-compressed or just plain rubbish sound...

Maybe it's the materialistic side of me showing up here, but I'm not sure I like the idea of "renting" media. Much prefer to think of it as having paid to own "my own copy".

 

[deeaa]

Firstly, you have an outstanding point about the difficulty as well as the cost of obtaining and using legal copyright material.

You're absolutely, 100%, hits-nail-square-on-the-head correct to say that the industry MUST take this seriously and make it EASIER and MORE CONVENIENT to obtain and use legal products.


Secondly, I still MUCH PREFER to own a CD, than download mp3, (whether that be bought-and-paid-for legal or otherwise!)

I have never used a share site or illegally downloaded music.
What I have done, though is borrow friends' CDs and rip them to my collection... STILL, however, I really do prefer to own the actual CD item. And in that, I'm probably in the minority...

I know people say that physical items can be lost/scratched/damaged, etc, but electronic copies can also be corrupted/wiped/deleted by accident, so owning the CD and ripping to mp3 at max bit-rate is my preffered way. That way I know I'm probably getting the best quality mp3 for my iPod. I know that a lot of the music being sold out there is of poor quality - either low bit-rate, or bit-compressed or just plain rubbish sound...

Maybe it's the materialistic side of me showing up here, but I'm not sure I like the idea of "renting" media. Much prefer to think of it as having paid to own "my own copy".

Yeah, I see your point too...I mean, I used to be a collector of many many things.

I think for the youth today...it may be different. Maybe because I'm a teacher and deal with them kids all days, it's caught on with me too.

More and more I find myself thinking why should I own this stuff, when every day it gets more and more accessible anyway.

Why should it be me who has to worry about keeping it safe and unscratched...and how to play it in various locations, hell, even buy different formats of the stuff.

Wouldn't it be great instead, you pay once, and then you have free access to the material ANYWHERE, you can for instance listen to songs off iPod, phone, stereo, computers...everything. And not have to worry about storaging it.

I think it is the future. Goes the same way as cash money, checks and paper bills - do you still use 'em? I can't even remember when I last used cash money, except coins for parking etc...which is becoming obsolete too, now that you can pay parking with your cell phone. And like bills - who pays their bills manually any more, when it's so easy as just tick the box on the bank's net service and that's it. 95% of all my bills are paid by the bank automatically anyway, I don't even bother checking the amounts most of the time. Can't remember the last time I visited a bank, must have been when we discussed our loan for the summer house.

Hell 99% of vending machines these days accept payment via cell phone. Buses and such as well. Some grocery stores already have experimental self-service, just fill the cart and the cart checks the prices and upon checkout the computer just debits your account directly.

I'm also pretty sure soon enough we don't have to own a car for instance...we just rent it, the same as we would also rent the batteries for the car. No need to leech the juice into car batteries at filling stations, instead swap the whole battery pack which is rented. Same as the whole car, only for like 5 year periods at time etc.

It seems to be the trend...and it IS much more convenient, isn't it?

 

[Perfect Stranger]

I've often wondered how a library can buy one book, one record, one magazine, or one newspaper and let potentially thousands and thousands of people read or listen to it knowing full well that some people will copy pages, make sound recordings, etc. It would appear that as long as you are a library, especially a gov't library it's perfectly fine, but if you are an individual then you are breaking copyright laws. The whole thing smacks of "do as I say, not as I do".

Is it any different for little old grandmothers that have reading clubs and swap books than for teens that swap music? Remember the old VCR players? How many can honestly say they never taped a show and loaned it to a friend? Does anyone think that people weren't and still aren't breaking copyright laws 24/7 using their VCR and DVR?

Is copying/ripping a friend's album, CD, or DVD any different than downloading a copy from the Internet? I think not!

Seems to me that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. They better learn to deal with it in another way....my 2 cents. :french

 

[deeaa]

I've often wondered how a library can buy one book, one record, one magazine, or one newspaper and let potentially thousands and thousands of people read or listen to it knowing full well that some people will copy pages, make sound recordings, etc. It would appear that as long as you are a library, especially a gov't library it's perfectly fine, but if you are an individual then you are breaking copyright laws. The whole thing smacks of "do as I say, not as I do".

Is it any different for little old grandmothers that have reading clubs and swap books than for teens that swap music? Remember the old VCR players? How many can honestly say they never taped a show and loaned it to a friend? Does anyone think that people weren't and still aren't breaking copyright laws 24/7 using their VCR and DVR?

Is copying/ripping a friend's album, CD, or DVD any different than downloading a copy from the Internet? I think not!

Seems to me that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. They better learn to deal with it in another way....my 2 cents. :french

Exactly! And still come up with some ways to generate income also for the people who make the music and films and whatnot.

Personally, I think a fixed fee would be the best. Just pay something monthly and get free access to most anything, like on Spotify etc.

You could also have some premium extras to have to pay to access the very latest film for instance, but it'd be low enough to not be a problem and since the system would be easy to use, it'd be easier to get it that way.

Like on Xbox360 - now that you can download full games to console directly at quite reasonable prices, it's easy enough to do and I must have bought well over dozen games already.

The same kind of system could work with most any device these days.

 

[Rampant]

Perhaps you have glimpsed the future

Yeah I very agree with your idea of not being compelled to paying any more than 1 licence fee for the same software for different platforms... definitely the way ahead. Unfortunately the industry will probably kick back on that idea as a "loss maker". However IMHO, the more they kick-back, the worse the problem will become and the industry could face total collapse as a result of their unwillingness to look pragmatism in the face - even at the loss of part of the profit. The loss of a small portion of profit must surely be preferable to a complete collapse? Short term greed will always win, though. Human nature will always prevail...

Please don't touch the sanctity of my car, though! Not everyone worships at the altar of the sportscar such as I do. And any system for the common good would rid the world of that most heinous scourge of modern society

 

[deeaa]

To further clarify: I pay something like 40+ dollars for a mere 24-meg in 4 out network access plus the WLAN and modem hardware, HD digital set top box that accessesses recording data over the network plus video rental etc...all is rental gear thus, although I hardly will need to send them back when they become obsolete; they just send me a newer box when need be. Once my box got struck by lightning, and they just sent me a new one, I could keep the old broken one. If they were my own, I would have had to suffer the loss.

Anyaway..add to that is the TV cable network fee which is something like 60 bucks a year, and for Xbox the Live network costs something....so anyway, I would gladly pay 20-30 bucks more per month if it would give me an easy access to any music I want, where I want, and films when I want.

Currently renting 'new' films directly to HD box or soon Xbox is ~6 dollars a pop. I maybe rent one in two months...sometimes 3 in a row but sometimes nothing in months. Maybe 40 bucks worth a year max. Easily would be more income for the movie companies to sell the service for me at a fiver a month; they'd get more income and I could watch movies whenever and not worry about how much was it this month.

Another fiver for free music d/l anywhere...I don't think I'd buy MP3's for over 60 bucks anyway per year, so no loss for the companies there either.

The same could go for software as well...

 

[R_of_G]

Is copying/ripping a friend's album, CD, or DVD any different than downloading a copy from the Internet? I think not!

excellent point.

that was the norm when i was a kid. everybody had blank tapes and friends would copy albums for their friends. while i am sure this was technically a violation of copyright laws, i don't remember ever reading about the RIAA demanding governments bring massive-dollar lawsuits against people who tape albums from their friends or launch multi-media campaigns to decry the menace of blank tapes.

imagine how preposterous it would be if what happens now happened then.

something along the lines of...

"hello, i'm lars ulrich and i want to tell you how wrong it is to use blank cassette tapes to copy your friends albums you two-bit thieves."

my general way of looking at things these days is that i try to pay for music when it comes from an independent/small label that actually needs the money. if it's being put out by a massive corporation, i don't think i am taking food out of anyone's mouth by downloading it.

perhaps i'd feel differently if the price of cd's wasn't still artificially inflated. the industry knows full well we are aware of the disparity between production costs and retail prices. if they think that's acceptable, i think it's acceptable to steal it. their loose morals came first.

 

[Rampant]

To further clarify: I pay something like 40+ dollars for a mere 24-meg in 4 out network access plus the WLAN and modem hardware, HD digital set top box that accessesses recording data over the network plus video rental etc...all is rental gear thus, although I hardly will need to send them back when they become obsolete; they just send me a newer box when need be. Once my box got struck by lightning, and they just sent me a new one, I could keep the old broken one. If they were my own, I would have had to suffer the loss.

Anyaway..add to that is the TV cable network fee which is something like 60 bucks a year, and for Xbox the Live network costs something....so anyway, I would gladly pay 20-30 bucks more per month if it would give me an easy access to any music I want, where I want, and films when I want.

Currently renting 'new' films directly to HD box or soon Xbox is ~6 dollars a pop. I maybe rent one in two months...sometimes 3 in a row but sometimes nothing in months. Maybe 40 bucks worth a year max. Easily would be more income for the movie companies to sell the service for me at a fiver a month; they'd get more income and I could watch movies whenever and not worry about how much was it this month.

Another fiver for free music d/l anywhere...I don't think I'd buy MP3's for over 60 bucks anyway per year, so no loss for the companies there either.

The same could go for software as well...

Nice ethos, but where do the music artists/music companies, movie makers/actors/producers and software writers/developers/companies make their dough??? A proportion??? Who decides each "artists" proportion if everyone simply pays per month for access to the entire catalogue??? The devil is in the detail...

I don't think you can lump in home recording of broadcasted material as being "Bad". Then you'd have to answer the question "who pays for your friend to sit in your house and watch stuff they don't subscribe to in their own home?"."Should there be an associated cost?"

 

[deeaa]

Nice ethos, but where do the music artists/music companies, movie makers/actors/producers and software writers/developers/companies make their dough??? A proportion??? Who decides each "artists" proportion if everyone simply pays per month for access to the entire catalogue??? The devil is in the detail...

I don't think you can lump in home recording of broadcasted material as being "Bad". Then you'd have to answer the question "who pays for your friend to sit in your house and watch stuff they don't subscribe to in their own home?"."Should there be an associated cost?"

Not a problem, of course they can easily see which songs etc. are downloaded the most and those makers etc. get the equivalent percentage of proceeds. It's just the same as with iTunes etc or even record sales; only simpler to find out who 'sells' the best.

I don't really understand what the last part of your message means in reality.

I don't see anything changing except the artists get instant payment according to how their stuff sells, you can cut some of the middlemen and so on.

It's already being done with Spotify etc. and it only needs to become the normal way of distributing media.

 

[Rampant]

excellent point.

that was the norm when i was a kid. everybody had blank tapes and friends would copy albums for their friends. while i am sure this was technically a violation of copyright laws, i don't remember ever reading about the RIAA demanding governments bring massive-dollar lawsuits against people who tape albums from their friends or launch multi-media campaigns to decry the menace of blank tapes.

imagine how preposterous it would be if what happens now happened then.

something along the lines of...

"hello, i'm lars ulrich and i want to tell you how wrong it is to use blank cassette tapes to copy your friends albums you two-bit thieves."

my general way of looking at things these days is that i try to pay for music when it comes from an independent/small label that actually needs the money. if it's being put out by a massive corporation, i don't think i am taking food out of anyone's mouth by downloading it.

perhaps i'd feel differently if the price of cd's wasn't still artificially inflated. the industry knows full well we are aware of the disparity between production costs and retail prices. if they think that's acceptable, i think it's acceptable to steal it. their loose morals came first.

I know this is an important topic, but yeah that made me grin and chuckle.

Of course blank cassettes is how it used to be and the modern replica of this is web-downloading... Trouble is that the old way you actually had to know someone who had bought the music you wanted to copy, whereas now it is a bigger problem with anything freely available;...

We all know that there is collusion and profiteering going on with music CDs, but 2 wrongs hardly make 1 right, now, do they? lol. And the music that I did copy in my former years - if there was anything worth keeping, I normally then went out and bought it for myself - 1. to get the best quality and 2. not to feel like such a freeloader on my friends

There is a move here in the UK to make Internet Provider Companies monitor who downloads what and for them to be responsible for cutting off customers who transgress. Who dreamed that one up? ROFL. That's like asking telephone companies to monitor all their customers phone calls with a view to cutting the service off if some arbitrary code of conduct is breached. A total non-starter. The companies need to generate profit from providing a service - they don't need to be told to exclude a segment of their clients based on what the clients do while using the service. That's like stopping someone using the pavement if they have used the pavement as a means to walk somewhere that is off-limits! Meanwhile what happens to the subscription of the excluded customer. Surely it would be illegal to charge for a service which they no longer provided? And the pavement analogy dude - would the offender's taxation be abated because they are no longer allowed to use the pavement which gets paid for through taxation. Knowing this country it will all pass through into some law compelling ISPs to comply. The cost will then be passed onto us - the customers - the majority of whom will never break the code. And that's just bad for both business and the consumer.

 

[Rampant]

Not a problem, of course they can easily see which songs etc. are downloaded the most and those makers etc. get the equivalent percentage of proceeds. It's just the same as with iTunes etc or even record sales; only simpler to find out who 'sells' the best.

I don't really understand what the last part of your message means in reality.

I don't see anything changing except the artists get instant payment according to how their stuff sells, you can cut some of the middlemen and so on.

It's already being done with Spotify etc. and it only needs to become the normal way of distributing media.

Here's where I see it getting too complex - Do the most popular download artists get the same 'cut' per download regardless of the total number of downloads each individual (fixed cost) subscriber makes. Or is it based on the number of downloads an individual subscriber makes and the proportion of his fixed cost that goes to artists being divided equally amongst the artists?

Say you download 100 albums this month. I only download 3. Does a proportion of one-hundredth of your subscription go to each artist as opposed to a set fee per download. I only downloaded 3. Does that mean that the artists' share of my subscription is one-third?

How about radio broadcast and entertainment fees. I've already downloaded "song A" this month. Do the radio stations' fees get abated because some of their listeners have already paid a share for the monthly rental for "song A".

Does each download only stay active for a subscription period? Do they automatically erase themselves? Or can I pay 1 months fixed fee in December each year and download all the music from that year that I liked in under that 1 months' fee alone and expect to permanently keep the music files?

What about copy protection? What about family members? What about syndicates who pay 1 individual fee?

Sorry for all the questions - I'm not being deliberately obtuse or negative, but these observations need to be investigated before the industry will even begin to acknowledge the need for a step change in the way they generate their profit. And then of course the more difficult challenge is to allow the individual companies and industry as a whole the to dictate their own agreeable terms.

Anyone got a spade?
There's some muck that needs shovelling up a very steep slope indeed.

 

[deeaa]

Here's where I see it getting too complex - Do the most popular download artists get the same 'cut' per download regardless of the total number of downloads each individual (fixed cost) subscriber makes. Or is it based on the number of downloads an individual subscriber makes and the proportion of his fixed cost that goes to artists being divided equally amongst the artists?

Based on individual song sales numbers. Just as selling CD's or anything, really. I don't see why would it be made more complex by determining some other factors to the pricing than per song basis.

Say you download 100 albums this month. I only download 3. Does a proportion of one-hundredth of your subscription go to each artist as opposed to a set fee per download. I only downloaded 3. Does that mean that the artists' share of my subscription is one-third?

How many songs you and your neighbor buy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the subscribers in total pay the record companies or whatever the artist organization is, say, 10.000 dollars

Then these said subscribers download, say miraculously 100.000 tunes altogether. That would make 0.1 dollars per download to make things simple.

Thus if, say Sony's artist 'dweeb' sells 100 mp3's, Sony would receive 10 dollars for that and further yield the artist his share, whatever it would be as per their mutual contract.

Since it's all basically automated and digital, artists and companies can easily be paid even weekly if so desired.

But in principle, it's exactly the same as with CD's, only more direct and simpler.

How about radio broadcast and entertainment fees. I've already downloaded "song A" this month. Do the radio stations' fees get abated because some of their listeners have already paid a share for the monthly rental for "song A".

That is also irrelevant. Do they currently get abated because many of the listeners own the CD's? Of course not. It is a separate service and digital distribution makes no difference to its functions.

Does each download only stay active for a subscription period? Do they automatically erase themselves? Or can I pay 1 months fixed fee in December each year and download all the music from that year that I liked in under that 1 months' fee alone and expect to permanently keep the music files?

I should think subscription periods would have to be with a minimum time, such as 12 months for instance - still you could pay monthly though. Much like cellular phones are done.

But the songs/media would be without any copy protection, and you could keep them indefinitely.

If you did what you propose, it would change nothing. Would you any way have bought all that music you D/L:d during that year? Probably not. Still you've ended up paying, say 120 dollars for them. If you now stop subscribing, and keep the data, who is hurt? You've paid for them; now if you want to keep it you will have to make sure they are stored well and safe, and still you can't get new songs anywhere.

But with paying just that little bit each month, there'd be no need to store the files. NO need to safeguard them. NO need to copy them manually between different devices etc. because you could easily just access ANYTHING from ANYWHERE as long as your subscription is valid.

Really, it's a win-win situation all the way.

For instance in Finland CD sales best ever was in 2001 and they were 127 million euros.
That equals to ~25 euros per inhabitant PER YEAR.

If we imagine only every fifth person would be interested in subscribing digitally, that would make exactly ten bux per month for the price with which record companies would make exactly the same income from it as on their BEST SALES YEAR EVER. And all without ANY cd pressing costs and delivery etc.

What about copy protection? What about family members? What about syndicates who pay 1 individual fee?

As I said, no copy protection needed. Family members etc. sure they would be able to use the same subscription, but with the price being so low it would certainly be preferable by anyone to have their own subscription. So my wife could for instance have her own selections etc. on her mobile phone to listen to when jogging and me my own.

The whole system of course could also be highly personalized. Every subscriber could have their own web sites for instance that could serve as portals to find music, make own playlists, get suggestions for stuff they might like, anything. And like any such media, it could also be incorporated with social media, facebook etc, where subscribers could freely browse each other's subscriptions, legally browse any YouTube content etc.

Sorry for all the questions - I'm not being deliberately obtuse or negative, but these observations need to be investigated before the industry will even begin to acknowledge the need for a step change in the way they generate their profit. And then of course the more difficult challenge is to allow the individual companies and industry as a whole the to dictate their own agreeable terms.

Anyone got a spade?
There's some muck that needs shovelling up a very steep slope indeed.

Of course. For me, all this seems simple as ever. It just requires a major shift from the media companies to realize what's going on here. They can't stop the digital revolution, it's evident. Honestly, I don't understand why haven't they started to arrange things like I wrote here...it would seem like a GREAT way to work and totally win-win for everyone.

The same could be, and also is, somewhat done with software as well.

Why would anybody WANT to save their precious email etc. on their own computer, when they can store all securely on a net service like Gmail and have full access anywhere, any time, and safe no matter if you crash your own computer.

Why would I want to buy, say Office programs and worry about installation etc. when I could buy a service where the Office would actually be run on a cloud computing network and I'd just access it from my computer like a terminal, but to me it would appear exactly as if it was on my own machine?

The world is changing, and it seems to me the media companies are the last ones jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[Tig]

Secondly, I still MUCH PREFER to own a CD, than download mp3, (whether that be bought-and-paid-for legal or otherwise!)


I know people say that physical items can be lost/scratched/damaged, etc, but electronic copies can also be corrupted/wiped/deleted by accident, so owning the CD and ripping to mp3 at max bit-rate is my preffered way.


Maybe it's the materialistic side of me showing up here, but I'm not sure I like the idea of "renting" media. Much prefer to think of it as having paid to own "my own copy".

All important points, Rampant!

I like having a "hard" copy of movies and music over only having something on a PC or X-Box hard drive. Backing up MP3's and other forms of media onto an optic CD/DVD or portable backup drive is a must! Mechanical hard drives will eventually fail.



As for downloading illegal copies, Torrent, etc., I noticed that most recent college graduates see this as normal, acceptable, and justifiable. Maybe I was brought up a different way, but taking without permission or paying is stealing, no matter how someone justifies it. :spank:

The only solid objection I have to illegal downloading is when it happens on a network owned by a company I work for. My job is to protect the company from the many legal implications that would happen if they allowed criminal activity within their infrastructure. Kinda' like someone smoking pot, if they do it at home, it's not really my business! :notme

Also, as an IT security professional, I feel that I am obligated to remain ethical and keep my integrity intact. The same goes with being a Dad... I have to lead by example. (bummer, but hey, it keeps me honest)

 

[Eric]

Yeah I very agree with your idea of not being compelled to paying any more than 1 licence fee for the same software for different platforms... definitely the way ahead. Unfortunately the industry will probably kick back on that idea as a "loss maker". However IMHO, the more they kick-back, the worse the problem will become and the industry could face total collapse as a result of their unwillingness to look pragmatism in the face - even at the loss of part of the profit. The loss of a small portion of profit must surely be preferable to a complete collapse? Short term greed will always win, though. Human nature will always prevail...

I absolutely agree with this. Right now, with the access to so many free items via downloading or burning copies, etc., people more or less self-govern. If somebody thinks they have already purchased an album, for instance, they will probably just download it in the next format instead of going out to buy the mp3s.

As companies stubbornly refuse to account for this, they are pushing people away from legit purchases. It's as though the record companies view customers as enemies that they should soak for as much $$ as possible, rather than as people who can appreciate their product and are willing to pay a fair price for it.

I should mention that I do think some services do 'get it.' For instance, I used emusic for a while, with which you pay something like $10 a month and get 30 DRM-free mp3s. That, to me, seems more customer-focused.

 

[markb]

Charles Stross' novel Accelerando begins in a near future where the music industry is run by the Mafia because they're the only ones willing and/or able to enforce the business model. A nice joke but pretty close to what the music industry faces.

 

[Kodiak3D]

The recording industry is going to have to face the fact that times are changing. CD sales are lower than ever and digital downloads are the way of the future. Perhaps even more important is that you no longer NEED a big recording company to produce your own music. Technology has reached the level that you can affordably set up a recording studio in your own home and upload that music straight to iTunes (or wheverever) or burn CD's and completely bypass the greedy recording companies that want to take an unfair portion of the profits for themselves.

The recording industry has been getting an unfair chunk of the profits for a long time. I'm all for the artists getting the money they deserve for their art, but the record companies now bow to a new master: iTunes. Steve Jobs decides the price of music now because he runs the biggest music outlet in the world. The record companies have tried numerous times to get Apple to raise their prices on iTunes, but Jobs refuses. The companies have no choice but to bow to his wishes because of the volume of products sold (plus they have no manufacturing costs to cover for digital downloads).

Sad thing is, the recording industry gets the larger chunk of change from digital downloads. While I'm sure it varies from contract to contract, one example I read involved Weird Al Yankovic (whose guitarist is actually very impressive). He receives about 5 cents per song...compared to the 60 cents his label receives. I see this changing in the future since downloads have become so prominent, much like the recent writers' strike over Internet and DVD sales.

 

[marnold]

To my surprise, the RIAA basically gave me what I was asking for: unencumbered MP3s at a decent price. Amazon has pretty much everything. $0.99 if you want one track, albums are much cheaper on a per-track basis. There's no reason for me to swipe anything when I know I can get a high quality copy of what I want, when I want it, legally.

DVDs are a whole different matter because the MPAA is still trying to ram its head into the sand. However, I couldn't really care less because I don't watch many movies. In general I agree with deeaa's premise. Legally renting movies, etc., in a digital format is very convenient. Owning something in a digital format blows. All the methods I've seen are so cumbersome from a DRM standpoint, that you're basically renting in a glorified fashion instead of owning.

Of course there are some in Big Media who feel that you never own any of that stuff you buy. You just are buying a license for it. And then they wonder why people hit the torrents.

 

[wingsdad]

Charles Stross' novel Accelerando begins in a near future where the music industry is run by the Mafia....

future ?

I've got a left hand that reminds me every day for the last 30 years who was in charge of my pursuit of a livelihood.

 

[deeaa]

To my surprise, the RIAA basically gave me what I was asking for: unencumbered MP3s at a decent price. Amazon has pretty much everything. $0.99 if you want one track, albums are much cheaper on a per-track basis. There's no reason for me to swipe anything when I know I can get a high quality copy of what I want, when I want it, legally.

DVDs are a whole different matter because the MPAA is still trying to ram its head into the sand. However, I couldn't really care less because I don't watch many movies. In general I agree with deeaa's premise. Legally renting movies, etc., in a digital format is very convenient. Owning something in a digital format blows. All the methods I've seen are so cumbersome from a DRM standpoint, that you're basically renting in a glorified fashion instead of owning.

Of course there are some in Big Media who feel that you never own any of that stuff you buy. You just are buying a license for it. And then they wonder why people hit the torrents.

Yes, I agree.

Besides, my 'plan' does not entail the idea that it would be the only possible way to listen/buy music. I'd think there would still be vinyls and CD's available besides digital downloads, for those who want to collect their favorites physically.

But I think majority would be happy with freely accessible media they don't need to own, just be able to freely use, once they pay a certain fee. At any rate, everything discussed here is very short-term stuff. We're discussing maybe a decade at best which is nothing.

The Internet is still in it baby shoes, and I do believe when my kids are big they probably just have some tiny hidden headset - maybe even an implant - they can access the net directly just by thinking about things, and playback and 'see' and hear information as naturally as looking around them in the real world. You can pretty much do that already now, only it's a cumbersome system to have video glasses, portable computers and motion/speech sensors, but you _can_ already have easy access to information superimposed on your vision and also sound.

Once that all gets integrated into people, things will change. There will never be a need for a book on paper or newspapers, maybe even TV and movies, etc. as people can just directly get them as media feed direct to senses.

It may seem utopia but I'm sure it will happen more or less like that in, say a hundred years at least.

In a few hundred more, I'm pretty sure people can also shed the boundaries of flesh altogether and move their consciousness onto machines, and ultimately let go of biological life entirely and become a species of non-bodybound entities.

But that's a long way ahead...I can't wait, though. I'd be among the first to transfer my self onto a machine if that were possible.

Still, anything that can be imagined will ultimately be possible to do. Everything people have ever imagined in their sci-fi books have become a reality as the technology has progressed. Even to my parents what we have today is completely beyond their understanding, they can't even begin to understand simple things like how do CD's work, or the Internet.

I'm sure for our kids the world will be completely different in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Another possible turn of events is that the evolutionary wheel clicks forward once again and a new breed of humans will start to emerge with some super-intelligent children starting to appear and slowly creating a new, better species of man, and ultimately wipe out the old mankind much like the homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthal 100.000 years ago.

But well, that's already much beside the point of digital downloads...I guess I just get talkative in the mornings since I don't see many people on my parental leave these days, LOL ;-)

 

[Rampant]

In a few hundred more, I'm pretty sure people can also shed the boundaries of flesh altogether and move their consciousness onto machines, and ultimately let go of biological life entirely and become a species of non-bodybound entities.

But that's a long way ahead...I can't wait, though. I'd be among the first to transfer my self onto a machine if that were possible.

That might give the phrase "blue screen of death" an entirely new, more literal and more poignant meaning altogether.

 

[Kazz]

The one point our friend DA has failed to mention.....is that how often do we buy a cd because we heard a good song on the radio or other means.....just to find out that is the ONLY decent track on the entire disc....I can count on one hand the number of cds I ever owned that I could listen to all the way through without skipping tracks......The first of which would be The Black Crowes Moneymaker. That is probably why I first started down the digital path.