Now that the Digital Economy Act has been passed by both Houses, what can internet users expect, and when? Quick answer: nothing much soon. The outgoing government says it introduced the measures because in the 20 months since the MoU between ISPs and copyright businesses, little progress has been made. So the P2P part of the …
Convenience is the key
Make it easier for people to legitimately get hold of content and they'll swarm to the legal way of doing things, tightening the thumbscrews on the illegal way of getting hold of content is not the answer. Just look at the Playstation3 situation, someone has started to hack the unit and Sony reacted by sending out an online update that removed users ability to run linux on their machines, so the someone in question is now determined to write new firmware that completely unlocks the PS3.
For example, on a 5.5mbit connection I can download a 350mb avi tv episode in 11 mins, roughly 1/4 the time it takes to watch it, and if I feel like watching a particular film, almost ANY film I don't have or can't find the disc then usually it's as simple as *type* *type* *type* *click* *click* *click* wait 20-30 mins and I can start watching it. Or in about 3 minutes if I'm downloading a set of rar's and I start to unpack them as soon as they're downloading.
I recently heard a particularly apt statement in a (downloaded - ha!) tv show that went something along the lines of; "the criminals make the rules and the police have to follow them".
I've been using Steam since 2004 and have never had a problem with it. I buy, I download (sometimes overnight, but usually within an hour or two) and then I play.
I haven't actually bought a physical PC game since about 2007 - Steam has provided me with all I need (indeed, even going so far as to use it to replace broken physical media).
Long may it continue.
Given nobody has any real idea of the full extent of illegal file-sharing, how can anyone say with any certainty that illegal file-sharing has dropped after the 12 months is up ??
Basing further legislation on figures pulled out of someones (read : the music industry) arse for the current figures and (presumably) the same people will create the future numbers, a group of people who have a vested interest in that figure either staying stable or increasing seems to me to be a conflict of interest.
But when have we ever let a conflict of interest get in the way of another trough to feed at for the politicians ??
that they will messer amount of p2p by the logic of
(level of sales in 2000)-(level of sales in their online businesses)=amount of losses due to piracy?
do some work
The phrase you're looking is "substitution ratio"
How they measure it
'Given nobody has any real idea of the full extent of illegal file-sharing, how can anyone say with any certainty that illegal file-sharing has dropped after the 12 months is up ??'
That's easy - if Hollywood has a bad year and its movies are even crappier than normal, or if Simon Cowell doesn't get a number one, that can only be because people have been pirating the material. Declines in sales are *never* anything to do with people not having the money to buy media, bad releases, piss poor distribution or offensively intrusive DRM.
re: do some work
you know that was just what my boss tells me when I am posting on your stories :)
It's still ridiculous
I'm still waiting for some to qualitatively (or quantitively) define the difference between downloading a series of, say, Stargate Universe or House, from BitTorrent and keeping it on your PC as compared to simply hitting SeriesLink on Sky+ and automatically recording each episode that you can then keep forever. Or putting a blank DVD in a recorder and making a perfect digital copy. Or even a videotape for f**ks sake!
That's just in terms of copyright in relation to possession.
A similar question arises with regard to the 'sharing' of copyright materials. What about if I tape/DVD an episode of 'Blue Planet' or 'Doctor Who' - something I've already paid for through the licence fee mind! - and then lend the recording to a mate who missed it? Does that make me a distributor? After all, it's functionally the same thing as putting a digital copy of it online for him to download from my FTP server.
Should my gran be getting worried once precedent is set because she tapes 'Coronation Street' every night to watch the next day in bed?
Anyone know where I can download some network traffic encryption software? Lets see how many nightmares we can give OFCOM and GCHQ trying to crack who-knows how many millions of 256 or 512-bit encryption streams.
Free download, of course. I'm not going to PAY for it!! ;-)
(Note to the comedically challenged - the last statement was a joke!)
as far as I am aware recording thing of the tv IS illegal atm but it is just not enforced please someone who knows correct me if I am wrong
IIRC videoing (or variant thereof) something off the telly to watch later is legal under fair use IF you watch it within 30 days and delete it afterwards. Sharing it with your mate because they missed it is illegal as it counts as distribution.
And no, no one has as yet been able to explain why you cant download an episode of Stargate Universe that you've missed instead of recording it as long as you abide by the above mentioned rules, although I would guess it's something to do with the medieval mindset that 1 download = 1 lost sale
No, it's not illegal
You may record something off the TV for purposes of "time shifting" (i.e. to watch later), but not if that involves bypassing any technical measures intended to prevent that.
IIRC Sky+ records the datastream directly from the signal, so would actually record the encrypted data if there was any DRM.
You're supposed to destroy the recording once you've watched it.
So in the above example, you can hit series link & record an entire series of something, you can even keep it indefinitely (as long as you don't watch it).
It appears that, under existing UK law, it is legal for the purposes of timeshifting, although no time limit seems to be applied:
Acts that are allowed
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
* Private and research study purposes.
* Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
* Criticism and news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* Copies and lending by librarians.
* Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
* <B>Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.</B>
* Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
* Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
So if you're a Librarian, it's legal to copy and lend?
Downloading vs. Sky+ / TiVO
[quote]I'm still waiting for some to qualitatively (or quantitively) define the difference between downloading a series of, say, Stargate Universe or House, from BitTorrent and keeping it on your PC as compared to simply hitting SeriesLink on Sky+ and automatically recording each episode that you can then keep forever. Or putting a blank DVD in a recorder and making a perfect digital copy. Or even a videotape for f**ks sake![/quote]
You can press any button you like on any device you like, but if it isn't being broadcast right now, you're not getting it. With the torrents, you can download just about anything you like, any time you like, whether it is currently broadcast or not.
This is the current model of broadcast / cable television. Advertisers gamble on what many people will watch and won't watch. Content owners rely on advertisers for things many people will watch, and dvd sales for things many people won't watch.
With downloading, you break the second half of that model. People who want to watch shows that broadcasters can't sell don't need to buy the dvd anymore. They can download it and avoid the costs.
Folks, this is where the distribution companies are right in their assessment of losses (that they are experiencing them, not the $ value they assign).
I don't like it any better than anyone else, but the truth is that for some of these tv series and movies that aren't routinely broadcast, people *will* pay for the dvd. With downloads readily available, people are less inclined to do so. Certainly the folks who don't have the money won't, but there are lots of people with money who don't buy them because downloading is cheaper and more convenient.
Like it or not, download *has* affected the dvd and cd industry. You can argue that those bastards had it coming, and I'd be right there with you, but you can't pretend that some (many?) people who used to buy dvd's and cd's stopped once downloading became easy.
Sky+ vs torrents
QUOTE: (partially edited)
I'm still waiting for some to qualitatively (or quantitatively) define the difference between downloading a TV series, from torrent and keeping it on your PC as compared to simply hitting SeriesLink on your Sky+ and automatically recording each episode that you can then keep forever. Or putting a blank DVD in a recorder and making a perfect digital copy. Or even a videotape for f**ks sake!
Download any TV shows from torrents on to your PC, and you have pretty much full control over how long you can keep the files, regardless of the legality of doing so, at least until your hard drive is full or crashes.
Meanwhile, with recording TV shows on a Sky+ box, since Sky still have some level of control over their proprietary PVR system, what's to stop them suddenly moving the goalposts? With one over the air software update downloaded to your Sky+ box in the background or overnight, suddenly your Sky+ recordings can only be kept for a specific amount of time, say up to 30 days, or maybe less, before they're automatically deleted. They could even impose another restriction that prevents you from copying those recordings from your Sky+ to another device, be it a computer, a DVD recorder, or an old skool VCR.
There's a chance that all Sky+ boxes already have these restrictions built in, but not enabled by default. It'd only take one push of a button by someone at BSkyB HQ to enable these "features" . . .
It'd most certainly stir up a shitload of controversy, but I wouldn't put it past Murdoch's Money Vultures to pull a stunt like this.
Paris ... only because she enjoys being screwed!
new music services?
I'll bet a large sum of money that nothing better than the current "illegal" alternatives is forthcoming from the music and film industries in the next 12/24 months. By better, I don't mean cheaper - I mean:
for music: a fair price for decent bitrates (ie lossless formats) with no attempts to cripple the service with DRM or other means to control how/when people can play their music.
for film: no DRM or forcing people to sit through half an hour of adverts/anti-piracy guff before being able to watch what you've paid for.
Take a look at the fantastic offerings from bleep, juno and boomkat if you need to get a clue.
Re: new music services?
I agree, but when did you last see DRM on music?
You can't have looked at iTunes or Amazon recently.
itunes = satan's digitised ass
iTunes is the poster boy for DRM. If you buy a track on your ipod, it cannot be played on any other device. If you lose the data on your ipod, you also lose the track. Even though the server knows you've paid before, it helpfully asks you if you want to "buy it again". Diabolical shit.
itunes and DRM
There are more audiotracks than just 'music' on iTunes & Amazon. They have audiobooks as well, and they ARE still DRM encumbered. Maybe try asking Cory Doctorow his experiences of getting his books on iTunes without DRM. That is, the Author/copyright holder (not always the same thing) and publisher not wanting DRM, but the distributer INSISTING on it.
I have plenty of purchased tunes in my ITunes that are AAC. I can right click these and select "Create MP3 version" and play these anywhere.
You can also burn to a CD and rip the CD. It degrades the quality a bit, but people wouldn't buy lossy music if they cared about that.
why allways music
what I want are tv shows and maby movices so I can watch them when I want for example I find a goos series half way throught I want to be able to catch up and watch the rest when I want (if I work shifts I can not watch any tv form 3pm to 12pm) P2P gives me that nothing else dose
TV on demand sucks
The ability to legally watch tv shows is severely crippled compared to the 'illegal' way of watching tv shows.
I was round a friends last night and he mentioned he hadn't seen a particular Top Gear episode where they take 4x4's through some jungle, the Bolivia Special it turned out, so did a search on BBC's iplayer and luckily it was available to watch.
I say luckily because there were ONLY FOUR EPISODES of Top Gear available on the iplayer site to watch, and one of them wasn't actually watchable because it was in the pipeline of becomming available.
What the fuck?
No really, what the fuck are the BBC playing at? we pay for access to this through our tv licence so why can't we see their almost entire back catalogue? or even just the past couple of seasons of something instead of the TABLE SCRAPS we're supposed to be geatful for.
Re: TV on demand sucks
Presumably that's so the BBC can sell the rights to Dave,and all those other channels where Top Gear is on 24 hours a day every sodding day of the week.
Would that be...
The same Dave that's owned by UKTV that's 50% owned by the BBC?
The same one that the BBC is trying to buy the other 50% of?
I hope they're not charging themselves too much for their own content.
Too much data
I wish I had the time to listen to/watch/play all the crap I can get perfectly legally. Want some music? Spotify is free (bar ads) and pretty good, or any internet radio station.
What to see film/TV prog? Might be on demand, might be on air (so just record it for watching later), might be cheap on DVD.
Want to play a game? There are seriously good games available as abandonware or FOSS.
Even books! Project Guttenburg.
I think this is what the major labels fear, a total collapse of their market. I, you, we simply don't need them. Content creators need not fear. marketing distribution etc. need not fear (although their jobs will certainly change). but major labels ripping off their talent and squeezing the customer for every penny they can get certainly need to fear.
So they lobby governments to pass laws that entrench their out-moded and dying business models and carry on shafting their customers even more.
I've not mentioned anything illegal - and I simply have no need to buy anything at full price or to even use illegal channels.
"One view is that up to now people have used P2P because they know they’re not being watched, and 12 months of monitoring may be enough to change that. Another view is that they may not care that they’re being watched, and are willing to take their chances."
Another view is that if they are watched,with just a few goggles, forum reads and downloads, you can create a smokescreen so thick that make you invisible again , and easy to share with others the tricks in a few minutes.
Call me sceptical...
But couldn't the media companies just ramp up the efficiency and number of CIR's they file over the year to give an illusion that its not enough, and the trend is still rising ?
They get then to have even more draconian laws protecting their lazy asses.
Seriously, if they haven't had enough time to sort themselves out with business models now, they won't ever do it. No matter how much money they get, it isn't ever enough, and a flat rate model really does not fit into the wallet busting amounts of money they want.
The deal is to come up with new services. If they don't, they may not get any technical measures at all.
"Seriously, if they haven't had enough time to sort themselves out with business models now, they won't ever do it. "
"No matter how much money they get, it isn't ever enough, and a flat rate model really does not fit into the wallet busting amounts of money they want."
That's just a retch isn't it? If you ask a manager, band or indie record label if they think "wallet busting amounts of money" are available now online, you'd be laughed out of the room.
"If you ask a manager, band or indie record label if they think "wallet busting amounts of money" are available now online, you'd be laughed out of the room."
Isn't that just proof that the distribution of wealth in the music industry is unjust and more needs to trickle down to the people actually involved in creating the content, rather than the people in the distribution industry that the internet has largely made redundant? Nearly all comments from the freetards suggest they have no objection to their cash going to artists, but they object very strongly to their money going to overpaid executives charging them over the odds for a completely outdated medium that they just dont want.
Define "justice". Independents just want access to markets and capital - you're not suggesting quotas, are you?
One very interesting thing is that the city likes independent operators - labels, artists, publishers, managers etc and wishes the music business looked more like Silicon Valley, so they could invest in people with a talent-spotting record, or the talent itself. Currently bets like this are taken within the major labels.
" Nearly all comments from the freetards suggest... overpaid executives "
Yes, but that's just an argument of convenience, that two wrongs make a right. People use the same logic pinching sweets from WH Smiths vs Mr Patel's Newsagent. There's also an intellectual prejudice against anyone making money from music. Maybe they should just become vegans, and live in a yurt.
You are Wrong Sir!
You say argument of convenience but it's how I feel. In the last year I've bought 2 CD's from HMV and 12 from local bands I've seen in a pub somewhere.
Sure a lot of that is because I don't like most of the music the major labels sell but if I had the chance to buy direct from an artist I would have bought more. I am fed up with the major labels and want them to go bankrupt. I originally stopped buying music from them when I kept noticing the CD version of a album was consistently cheaper than the MP3 download version (on Amazon and play) and the only reason I could see for that was greedy executives trying to stop technology.
I'm the same with PC games, I stopped buying PC games when the DRM started affecting the machine it was installed upon. I'm a massive C&C fan but don't own Red Alert 3 or C&C4 because the DRM is too invasive.
I have a Cineworld card and go to Cineworld 2 or 3 times a week and have to ask why I need to be thanked to go to the cinema. All that does it help me compile a list of soulless greedy actors whose films I'm going to start avoiding.
The BBC has shown what's needed with the iPlayer, but does the any other media company embrace this idea?
I don't pirate I just don't buy, although I'm sure the music and film industries will use the decrease in sales as a argument for more DRM and more invasion of my privacy.
Re: You are Wrong Sir!
I hear what you're saying, the music business failed to make the supply side reforms.
There are lots of people interested in what kind of service you actually would be willing to take up, that's for sure. Within the scope of "any music on any device, anywhere", lots of permutations are possible. I wouldn't want or need unlimited downloads for example.
But if your willingness to spend is genuinely zero, though, I don't think anybody's going to listen to your opinion. That's why the Pirates are pissing up a wall.
> The BBC has shown what's needed with the iPlayer, but does the any other media company embrace this idea? <
I thought everyone does an iPlayer now? ITVPlayer, 4oD etc. What's Spotify?
Andrew, I can't be sure if you're deliberately playing devils advocate, but you seem to have misinterpreted what I said just enough that you seem to be arguing with me, yet at the same time supporting what I've said
I didn't use the word justice at any point in my original post. Sticking it in quotation marks suggests that you either haven't read my post, or are answering the questions you think I should've asked. Ever considered a career as a cabinet minister?
"Independents just want access to markets and capital - you're not suggesting quotas are you?"
I'm not sure how you would get the idea I was suggesting quotas from my post but hey ho, I guess that's why I'm not a respected technology journalist. No, I wasn't suggesting quotas, what I was suggesting was that the record industry largely exists to produce, promote and distribute music, a role that thanks to technology in general and the internet in particular, is largely redundant. Most people now posess the ability to record music and distribute it over the internet. Shows can be easily promoted by the bands themselves without the need for a promoter as all bands worth their salt will now have a Facebook page, a Myspace page and a Twitter feed at the very least, to send information about gigs to anyone interested. They don't NEED a middleman (charging an arm and a leg) to do this for them. There are also excellent independent local recording studions (I can think of 3 within a 10 mile radius of me) that are desperate for business, but because they're not affiliated with a major label, no one wants to use them, as it's not a guarantee of success. For all their size, major labels still only have a finite amount of money to invest, and it will be invested in the safest option, eg bland unioriginal and uninspired drivel for the teenage girl market, as that will guarantee the biggest return on investment. Independent music that caters to niche interests gets ignored, they do a good enough job promoting themselves using the methods outlined above, but while the market is still dominated by an outdated business model they will never be as successful as they could be. Removing the distribution companies (and I've outlined above why this is very possible nowadays) means more money is available to the indies, just like you wanted, and would allow people to "talent spot" (as you put it) genuine talent, rather than major label crap that has given us *shudder* jedward.
"People use the same logic when pinching sweets from WH Smiths"
I'm sure they do, but that wasn't the point I was making. Overlooking the "downloading music isn't the same as theft" arguement for a minute, because I think we can both agree, it's a pretty tired one, my point was that people only have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment these days. The distribution companies arguement seems to be that you HAVE to buy this as a physical medium (CD), even though you know that a digital copy would be a fraction of the cost, and the CD is going to be converted to a digital format anyway (I accept this may not be true for everyone, but it's true for enough people to still make a legitimate arguement) How is that fair? I cannot think of any other area of life where this would be accepted, the market would shift to the cheapest possible altrernative and the company refusing to modernise would go bust. There are very few, if any, industries that have to demand legislation to protect their business models. (I know there are download services available, but their in the early stages and the cost per track seems to be Cost of CD/Number of tracks on CD rather than any reflection of costs involved).
This arguement about the cost of music has been rumbling on for a very long time. I can remember when I was in school and CD's had just become a viable medium, they cost almost half as much again as the tapes and LP's they were replacing, yet cost a fraction of the cost to manufacture (I recall a figure of 10p a CD, but that could have been schoolyard grumbling) I know there's the issue of better quality, but I was under the impression that in a free market economy things should be priced at Cost of Production + Cost of Distribution + Fair Margin for Producer. This has never been reflected in costs for the consumer, and the internet has highlighted this hypocrisy even more.
"There's also an intellectual predjudice against people making money from music. Maybe they should become vegans and live in a yurt"
EPIC FAIL! The whole point of my post was that people should be able to make MORE money from Music, on the proviso that it's people who are actually involved in the actual making of music. If I go and have my car fixed I want to pay the mechanic who did the work, not all his buddies who weren't involved. The distribution industry is not necessary for the creation, promotion and distribution of music anymore. They have become the opposite of Free Market enterprises now, they are protectionist cartel's that aren't just stopping the development of new bands and creative new methods of recieveing and enjoying music, they're actively harming it.
David > " people should be able to make MORE money from Music"
David > "...on the proviso"
Yes, there's always a proviso. I'm not sure why you think either of us in a position of authority to set down such restrictions on what kind of transactions are permissable. You need to justify it, so perhaps you can elaborate using the following example.
Imagine you're in a medium-sized act that stands a good chance of being very successful. Say, where Florence and the Machine about a year to 18 months ago.
Which of these would you permit the band to engage in?
• Hire professional management for the band?
• Joining a performance rights society for collective bargaining? Or would they have to negotiate their radio, TV airplay individually?
• Employing street teams? Or would they have to pound the pavement themselves?
• Professional digital marketing agencies? Or would the band have to be on Twitter all day?
Piracy is not just illegal cheapskates, I have downloaded a lot illegally because I can't buy the stupid thing in the shops. I spend months trying to find out of date TV series and things from my childhood online in amazon or play etc. I would like boxed sets of those kind of things on my shelf, instead of a PC harddrive.
Example. Region 2 copy of Due South. (The mountie thing from the 90's) I could get a Canadian import at hugely overrated price (With import tax, posting etc it was tripled in value by the time I was ready to pay.) And it wouldn't work on my hardware as it was region 1. The 'regions' thing is a complete annoyance and waste of time because they want you to buy your local versions, which isn't available because if the huge US bias we have going on .
I also downloaded the X-men cartoons from my childhood, and the thundercats. None of which can be bought in shops because they are old stuff.
I don't download music legal or otherwise, I buy CD's, but I don't buy anything now as it is all crap, that is why the music industry is failing.
What will happen as has been said many times is encryption, and what that will do is make a mockery of this law and the security services. What that will mean is another law making encryption illegal further down the line.
Anon because I just admitted to downloading Due South and thundercats. :)
... completely. However, you're also forgetting the convenience factor as well. Simple example - you're working away from home and you've got your laptop. A lot easier (I know, because I've done it!) to chuck a load of files on the laptop HDD, or even on a pen-drive, than it is to carry around a load of DVDs.
Most media providers are stuck completely in the past, with very rigid pricing structures. "We want you to pay this, and so you shall." In a TRUE free-market economy, people will pay what they think something is worth - what the market will tolerate. If something is good, people (ok, ok, MOST people. Some freetards are beyond help) don't mind paying for it. If it's terrible, people won't touch it whatever the price.
As proof, I'd like to direct you to 'Big Brother' and the variety of horrors the await you, lurking in the bottom of the bargains section in your local DVD sales establishment!
I actually thought Due South was OK.
Fine, I was a kid, and didn't have the finely tuned sense of taste I have now, blah blah blah.
You might have chosen better examples.
Thundercasts for example is available in the UK:
as is Due South:
and if you can't be bothered to pay £2.83 for the x-men original series:
then you are part of the problem.
I am sick an tired of this region schedules rubbish. I love watching Family Guy and American Dad ( my only sad and guilty shame!) , but I am blowed if I am waiting 6 months for the DVDs to come out over here, I would like to see them within a day or two of them being shown on TV in the States. So I torrent them the morning after they are shown. When the DVDs come out for pre-order I ALWAYS buy them!
My missus is the same with CSI , House, etc. She likes chattting on the forums with other viewers, well she can't do that 6 months down the line! So she torrents them, to enjoy them at the same time as everyone else so she can stay in with the communities. Once again, when the pre-orders are annouced, she's ALWAYS first in line for the DVDs.
Where's the online catalog available to UK/European viewers of new TV shows in the US? With or without DRM, I don't care, I just want to enjoy them at the same time as every one else.
Sorry TV companies, you didn't bother investing in the online infrastruture so the little people decided to fill the niche. You still have time, but crying to the governments of the world will not solve it, it may stem the tide a little but the word "torrent" was not chosen lightly!
Where and when do I submit a disconnect request...
for my local MP, and every member of the associated party?
on May 6th...
... probably at your local primary school or church hall.
Ode to a ex-pirate/freetard/scum - Just my 2 pence worth
Well its time to bite the bullet and wrap up my downloads.
So time to reduce my 50mb Broadband to 10mb cost saving for me – Sorry NTLworld don't need it anymore
No burning disc's for my mates. Sorry! – Saving for me.
Went to off to Blockbuster we go to check out the viable alternative and hire some movies - Some for me and some for the kids. Out of the 6 movies I got 3 were so badly scratched that they wouldn't play. When I complained at the shop I was informed it was the customers fault as they mistreated the discs. Not my problem I said I didn't scratch them, I want my money back. Err, um sorry can't give you your money back as it's against company policy. I'll give you some replacement films. Well I will remember that before I return here again won't I.
Blaming your customers for you not ensuring your disc's are 'up to scratch'
Viable alternative to Piracy? Rubbish! So far but still looking forward to the new business models
So in a year's time when sales haven't gone UP.
This will be the only measure the meeja companies are going to recognise as a decrease in Piracy is an increase in profits….. Then Piracy has gone really deep underground we need more control.
Everyone is using encryption? What can we do? Can we extend RIPA to cover encrypted internet traffic? Of course we can…… this is the War on Terror!
Roll out Deep Packet Inspection and controls on Encrypted Traffic (Encrypted traffic automatically moved to the slow lane for special consideration) and find where all the Piracy is going on……. Still can't find it. Damn it! It is happening but how can we track/measure/control it. How do you know its Piracy?
It must be Piracy look at our bottom line it hasn't gone up in 5 years 1000's of people will loose their jobs.
Throttling will happen. Some Pirates will carry on regardless but it will be more difficult. But they can only throttle if a users is accused of Piracy..... Well speed camera's started as a safety prevention measure and now..... Everybody has a point or three
Eventually we will all pay a percentage of our Broadband cost to meeja a company to off-set looses to Piracy. They already do it in Spain when they buy blank discs. Why not here?
And the Meeja business is carries on churning out shit which nobody will spend what little money they have left on.
So how can we fight back? Bought a DVD and watched it? Sell it on. Meeja companies hate 2nd hand sales as they get nothing from it. Buy your DVD's 2nd hand and lend them round your mates. One person buys a disc then lends it to everybody you know. Of course this is a infringement of your license but looking at a DVD upside down is a infringement of your license telling you mates a film is $hite is a infringement of your license.
We will still share and they can't track it and they continue to loose money! Perfect Loose Loose situation for everybody!
Special thanks to Lord Mandy the unelected untrustworthy dark master!
"So in a year's time when sales haven't gone UP."
Oh but they will, just like the UK music sales have gone up over the last 10 years. The BPI's own figures, for instance, show a 30% increase in singles sales over 10 years ago ("it should be erm, 90% more, but for them pirates!" Cinema figures are stronger than ever, and this during a RECESSION. It doesn't take much research to show that most of the claims made about the 'freetards' by the industries, are fake. Yet they are still gobbled up by those that are clearly undeserving of the leading 'f' and regurgitated as fact.
It's amazing what people will do or believe for a free holiday, lump of cash, or even pint. It's those people, the politicians, and journalists that dive no deeper than industry press releases, and ignore facts because it might interupt their 'free' gifts that are the real freetards.
"The BPI's own figures, for instance, show a 30% increase in singles sales over 10 years ago"
Can you guess why, Andrew?
you're right. there's no figures published for now, to compare with 10 years ago... therefore my statement was strictly false (but still more accurate than that substitution ratio stuff before - and I noticed my comment on that, the first one, was NOT approved)
So lets go to 10-year figures we DO have for singles, say 1998 and 2008 (and even better, 1998 was before Napster)
Singles sales for 1998: 77,610,000
Singles sales for 2008: 115,200,000
That's actually a growth more like 45% (using rough mental maths, I'm sure you can calculate it differently. So I was wrong again, it's not 30% growth, it's MORE!
My source for these figures? My word, it's the BPI's top product lines publication, which shows 33% growth in single sales between 2007 and 2008 (maybe thats what I was thinking of when I said 30%
Now, on the other hand, the same document shows that album sales are falling, after a peak in 2004. At the same time though, in 2008, there were still more albums shifted than in 1998, about 8% more. Most of the drop corresponds with a take up in digital singles purchasing, so presumably a-la-carte music buying is shifting the sales from full albums, to individual album tracks (ie singles) as people eliminate the filler-tracks. (a warning of this has been distributed amongst BPI members, although since you've not worked in the music industry - as I have - you'd probably not have been aware of that)
Icon because, well, actually looking at the industry's data seems to be too 'technical' for many people, such as politicians tasked with 'Business' portfolios
Your proposition is that the sound recording industry is healthy,
Your supporting evidence is increasing sales of singles.
Thank you, your argument is toast.
Re: RE: Re: oopsie
That's why I said revenue not sales.
I think if you put a shift in, and dig into the results for Warners and UMG, and do some analysis, and read between the lines: you will actually enjoy what you find. Winky.