3 posts • joined Monday 10th March 2008 13:19 GMT
"If you take a copy of something for free, instead of paying for that copy - and you could have afforded it - then you deprive the owner of a sale."
But the argument being made is that prerecorded music is an advertisment for the real thing - the live performance. And thats not even getting into your assumption that every downloaded song is a deprived sale. I routinely download music that has been suggested to me by friends, to see if I do infact like it. If it's good, I'll generally go out and buy the album on CD. If it sucks, it sits in my iTunes library gathering dust.
Personally, I think that more and more, people (like my mum and dad) are downloading music "guilt free" not because they are robbing faceless corporations, but because the sense of entitlement that stems from many "artists" is completley out of align with thier respective talents. Let me explain:
There are two key factors that I think are providing normal, law abiding citizens to commit grand copyright theft. 1) "modern" composers insist on calling themselves "artists" when they clearly arn't and 2) the perversion of copyright law provides these artists the framework required to be repeatedly paid for work that has already been compensated for.
My mum doesnt feel guilty for downloading Westlifes back catalogue because Westlife are just a covers band. They are not artists, merely pretty karioke stars. There is no art in their work because they are not producing an original creative work. And secondly, Westlife made millions and millions from selling something they only had to produce once. My mum was not paid repeatedly for work she hald already been compensated for. She fails to see the argument as to why Westlife should too, especially when they are singing someone elses song. A similar act my mother also does when she potters about the house, singing to herself.
It doesnt help when you see artists like this bitching about lost sales and the hardships of having to decide on the interior of their Ferrari.
My parents replaced their entire music collection, at great expense, twice. Once from LP to tape, then from tape to CD. They are done buying music.
The wierd thing is, over the last 3 years, my parents have actually started to go to see more live music then they ever did before. They claim its because "it's the real thing, isn't it?"
I dont understand the problem
Sorry, but I'm really missing the point of the tone of the Register over this issue. The authors tone in this article, and indeed in all the articles posted by the Register regarding this issue seem to take the tone that the BBC is in the wrong here. The limitations of various ISP's is of no concern of the BBC, or indeed, any internet content provider.
It is a well documented fact that ISP's have been vastly overselling thier capabilities and now are in a panic desperately trying to back peddal on the services they provide. I certainly understand thier protesting at the launch of a new, and I assume extreemley popular (if not now, in the future) bandwidth heavy service, but how they can demand that the BBC take responsibility is beyond me.
If ISP's have been selling broadband cheaper than it costs to maintain, then that is thier issue. Step aside and let ISP's who know how to manage thier businesses in an appropriate manner take up the mantel (be that higher, more realist charges for bandwidth charged to the customer, then so be it).
Can someone explain how this is any different for the BBC than, say, youtube or bit-torrent, or even, one of my own websites? Is this just an attempt by UK ISP's to broach the subject of tiered internet, anit-net nuetrality?
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE