That's opinion.The#1Spot wrote:
I wasnt very specific but yea. Current music has only around 3 to 5 good songs and the rest are crap.Smithereener wrote:
Well, I liked every song on Black Holes & Revelations. Some more than others, but I liked all of them.The#1Spot wrote:
Let me ask this question when was the last album written to cd that was worth 20 or so dollars and every song was good?
I can see what you mean though. I've bought a number of CD's because of a few songs that I liked, only to be disappointed by the rest.
If only there were some kind of way to buy the singles that you like....The#1Spot wrote:
Let me ask this question when was the last album written to cd that was worth 20 or so dollars and every song was good?
I've bought several CD's that I enjoy and I've never paid $20.
Absolutely. If peoples buying habits remain constant then no one loses anything from piracy.topal63 wrote:
People assume piracy reduces sales. But they fail to argue IMO, that people would pay for it, for sure, in the first place.
I'm a huge downloader, and I'm also with one of the major ISP's concerned in signing this deal. I've already had 2 warning letters in the past for 'excessive Internet usage'- which I think is the most severe letter they could issue prior to signing this deal (i.e. before they were allowed to legally snoop around and look at what the excessive usage is downloading).
Frankly, I'm not even bothered.
There is no law or legislation in place as of yet... this is merely a deal between an ISP and a media organisation. They can take people to court in civil cases, but the process is lengthly and costly-- surely only reserved for the worst of offenders; people who download on an unimaginable scale for large-scale piracy operations such as flogging CD's for profit. The article mentions that the "government will back up this agreement with Parliament-made law"... but until that law is passed through I'll carry on downloading as per usual. New laws aren't made in a week either, so I'm sure I'll have plenty of time to indulge .
You may say I'm foolish, but the worst case scenario for me is that I have to move ISP. Having my contract with one of the worst ISP's in the country terminated because of violations in terms of use is a GIFT, not a PUNISHMENT. Do they even realise how far people go to try and attain a MAC (Migrate Away Code) from the ISP? Haha! All this agreement will achieve is a further driving of P2P and downloading into the underground, - it won't be effective at all, it will merely force heavy downloaders to go and pay another smaller ISP for their services. As many other people have said, you can't truly stop piracy. Especially on a medium as huge and limitless as the Internet.
Disappointing yet also humouring to read the ISP's 'triumphant' mood in their new-found role as Internet Police. It'll never work. They'll just lose business as people emmigrate away in droves to the smaller snoop-free havens.
Frankly, I'm not even bothered.
There is no law or legislation in place as of yet... this is merely a deal between an ISP and a media organisation. They can take people to court in civil cases, but the process is lengthly and costly-- surely only reserved for the worst of offenders; people who download on an unimaginable scale for large-scale piracy operations such as flogging CD's for profit. The article mentions that the "government will back up this agreement with Parliament-made law"... but until that law is passed through I'll carry on downloading as per usual. New laws aren't made in a week either, so I'm sure I'll have plenty of time to indulge .
You may say I'm foolish, but the worst case scenario for me is that I have to move ISP. Having my contract with one of the worst ISP's in the country terminated because of violations in terms of use is a GIFT, not a PUNISHMENT. Do they even realise how far people go to try and attain a MAC (Migrate Away Code) from the ISP? Haha! All this agreement will achieve is a further driving of P2P and downloading into the underground, - it won't be effective at all, it will merely force heavy downloaders to go and pay another smaller ISP for their services. As many other people have said, you can't truly stop piracy. Especially on a medium as huge and limitless as the Internet.
Disappointing yet also humouring to read the ISP's 'triumphant' mood in their new-found role as Internet Police. It'll never work. They'll just lose business as people emmigrate away in droves to the smaller snoop-free havens.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Hardly any of what you've written there is true. They can take you to court and do target small scale downloaders. They have been able to monitor downloads and send far more severe letters than you've been sent - I know many people who've had letters detailing some of their downloads (filenames, dates, file sizes etc.) and telling them they'd better not do it again or they will face legal action. ISPs cooperate with each other a great deal, if you were kicked off an ISP you may find it quite difficult to sign up for Internet with anyone else and if they do provide you with service they will probably monitor your activities quite strictly.Uzique wrote:
I'm a huge downloader, and I'm also with one of the major ISP's concerned in signing this deal. I've already had 2 warning letters in the past for 'excessive Internet usage'- which I think is the most severe letter they could issue prior to signing this deal (i.e. before they were allowed to legally snoop around and look at what the excessive usage is downloading).
Frankly, I'm not even bothered.
There is no law or legislation in place as of yet... this is merely a deal between an ISP and a media organisation. They can take people to court in civil cases, but the process is lengthly and costly-- surely only reserved for the worst of offenders; people who download on an unimaginable scale for large-scale piracy operations such as flogging CD's for profit. The article mentions that the "government will back up this agreement with Parliament-made law"... but until that law is passed through I'll carry on downloading as per usual. New laws aren't made in a week either, so I'm sure I'll have plenty of time to indulge .
You may say I'm foolish, but the worst case scenario for me is that I have to move ISP. Having my contract with one of the worst ISP's in the country terminated because of violations in terms of use is a GIFT, not a PUNISHMENT. Do they even realise how far people go to try and attain a MAC (Migrate Away Code) from the ISP? Haha! All this agreement will achieve is a further driving of P2P and downloading into the underground, - it won't be effective at all, it will merely force heavy downloaders to go and pay another smaller ISP for their services. As many other people have said, you can't truly stop piracy. Especially on a medium as huge and limitless as the Internet.
Disappointing yet also humouring to read the ISP's 'triumphant' mood in their new-found role as Internet Police. It'll never work. They'll just lose business as people emmigrate away in droves to the smaller snoop-free havens.
Of course if you use a bit of common sense then it is easy to download a lot illegally with very, very little risk - but ignoring the risks that do exist is not wise, because some people do get utterly fucked over for illegal downloading.
I think the fact that they're making such a fuss about it is proof enough. Unless you think they're doing it on principle.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely. If peoples buying habits remain constant then no one loses anything from piracy.topal63 wrote:
People assume piracy reduces sales. But they fail to argue IMO, that people would pay for it, for sure, in the first place.
Proof enough of what? They're pissed off that people are getting their products for free. Unless those people would otherwise have paid for those products then they lose nothing, which is exactly what I just said and is indisputably true.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I think the fact that they're making such a fuss about it is proof enough. Unless you think they're doing it on principle.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely. If peoples buying habits remain constant then no one loses anything from piracy.topal63 wrote:
People assume piracy reduces sales. But they fail to argue IMO, that people would pay for it, for sure, in the first place.
They're looking for a scapegoat, at least when it comes to the music industry. With movies and software, it's easier to argue that piracy has hurt the market, mostly because of the production costs. With music, it's a simple matter that people don't want to pay $20 for an album on a medium that has been around since 1985. CDs are dirt cheap to produce, and nowadays, recording an album is relatively easy in your own home if you have the right equipment.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I think the fact that they're making such a fuss about it is proof enough. Unless you think they're doing it on principle.Bertster7 wrote:
Absolutely. If peoples buying habits remain constant then no one loses anything from piracy.topal63 wrote:
People assume piracy reduces sales. But they fail to argue IMO, that people would pay for it, for sure, in the first place.
For the most part, a lot of bands in the future will probably self-release more material online without the aid of a recording company, because then, they can keep most of their profits from touring. Most record contracts suck up a large portion of concert sales, which is the bread and butter of artists (not the actual sale of albums). Promoters already make a ton of money as it is, and when artists have to carve out a big chunk for the recording company in addition to that, it understandably pisses them off.
This is so true. What people don't realise is that recording companies are basically a bank that loans to artists. Originally this was the only way for artists to be heard on a large scale. The record company would loan them a few million to cover the cost of CDs and production, and the artists wouldn't see a penny from sales until they'd made 3 albums or so and were raking in millions upon millions for their label.Turquoise wrote:
They're looking for a scapegoat, at least when it comes to the music industry. With movies and software, it's easier to argue that piracy has hurt the market, mostly because of the production costs. With music, it's a simple matter that people don't want to pay $20 for an album on a medium that has been around since 1985. CDs are dirt cheap to produce, and nowadays, recording an album is relatively easy in your own home if you have the right equipment.
For the most part, a lot of bands in the future will probably self-release more material online without the aid of a recording company, because then, they can keep most of their profits from touring. Most record contracts suck up a large portion of concert sales, which is the bread and butter of artists (not the actual sale of albums). Promoters already make a ton of money as it is, and when artists have to carve out a big chunk for the recording company in addition to that, it understandably pisses them off.
Nowadays that isn't necessary, production costs are significantly lower and record companies are basically leeching profits unnecessarily from artists and essentially killing them. All bands are better off without record companies, and if they're serious about keeping their hard earned profits need to move away from the stone-age system (which some are waking up to - ala Radiohead and others). Many new artists however don't realise this and get caught in the trap; this is the only reason record companies still exist. They're a business at the end of the day, and they will lie, cheat and steal to stay in business. If that means forging grey areas in the law regarding considering copyright infringement as theft:- then that's what they'll do.
Unethical? Yes but they want to make money at the end of the day.
The best thing we can do as consumers is not pay a penny. If you want the music get it either direct from the artist or acquire it in a way that ensures record labels don't get a penny.
End of.
Poseidon wrote:
Piracy will never be stopped. Ever.