Downloaders in court

[anto1208]

Anyone listening to the last word during the week i Think its IRMA are taking people to court for downloading music .

this allways annoys me , the vast majority of people download music use it as a way of finding new artists then if the artist is any good they buy there album go to the gigs etc . As the Artic monkeys proved downloads do not effect music sales in a negative way .

I think music is different from most products if i go to a restaurant and the food is horrible i can send it back and refuse to pay , but have you ever tried to take back a CD beacuse its rubbish !! , I dont know how much money ive wasted on cd's that turn out to be crap trying to give new bands a go .

Think from now on ill just not support any new irish acts at all .



btw delete if you feel this thread could land foot.ie in court

[Dodge]

Think thats rubbish tbh. Most people I know who download do it because they hear a song they like and want to get it as cheap as possible (free is a bonus)

There's loads of new acts who allow their stuff to be downloaded for free if thats your thing.

Personally I have no moral qualms about trying to get as much music as possible free, but I can see the music industry POV.

Also the people being prosecuted weren't being done for downloading but rather for "sharing" their music. One guy was "sharing" 180,000+ tracks

It'll be a long long while before anybody is prosecuted for downloading the odd album

[Macy]

I would have no problems downloading free songs (Biggest hindrance to me is the lack of broadband to do it!), just as I have no qualms about borrowing and burning them either. If I really like something I go and buy it myself - best form of advertising imo.

IRMA and their UK equivalent may have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that they are simply trying to protect their cosy cartel and keep CD prices up. Similar to them trying to close down on line music stores. You'll hear lots of record companies giving out about it, but very few artists that IRMA claim to be protecting.

Like most industries, they all consider competition is good until it actually starts driving down prices and reducing profits, then it's back to protectionism.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm a musician myself and I've never had any problem with anyone downloading my stuff. Sure it'd be me that posted it for downloading.

I look at it this way -when I was 17 I enquired of a friend if he had any Metallica records I could borrow. Not wanting to give me his records for fear he'd never see them again -but wanting to switch me onto Metallica HE bought blank tapes and copied ALL of them for me ...I'm guessing 4 albums and a hatful of CDs. Today 17 years later I own legit commercial versions of everything he copied for me ...because when you like a band -that's what you do.

I do think the "industry" speaks in forked tongues on this one. It's happy to involve itself in developing technologies that make 100% fidelity reproductions possible and happy to profit from them ...and then bitches about people using those technologies for exactly the purpose they were intended.

But if there's an individual being prosecuted because he'd 180K audio files to swap that tends to suggest he's a professional bootlegger and as such ...fcuk him.

[anto1208]

I'm a musician myself and I've never had any problem with anyone downloading my stuff. Sure it'd be me that posted it for downloading.

I look at it this way -when I was 17 I enquired of a friend if he had any Metallica records I could borrow. Not wanting to give me his records for fear he'd never see them again -but wanting to switch me onto Metallica HE bought blank tapes and copied ALL of them for me ...I'm guessing 4 albums and a hatful of CDs. Today 17 years later I own legit commercial versions of everything he copied for me ...because when you like a band -that's what you do.

I do think the "industry" speaks in forked tongues on this one. It's happy to involve itself in developing technologies that make 100% fidelity reproductions possible and happy to profit from them ...and then bitches about people using those technologies for exactly the purpose they were intended.

But if there's an individual being prosecuted because he'd 180K audio files to swap that tends to suggest he's a professional bootlegger and as such ...fcuk him.

Well if he is "sharring" them then he is doing so with out making any money from them .

If he was selling the tracks thats different .

As a metallica fan you ll know first hand the problems they have suffered and the millions it cost them going against the downloaders ( napster ) , Went from being one of the biggest bands in the world to being a laughing stock .

When a band of multi millionares attack the people that gave them everything they have over an extra few quid it sickens me . An artist should just be happy so many people listen to there music ( guess who saw south park :D)






Think thats rubbish tbh. Most people I know who download do it because they hear a song they like and want to get it as cheap as possible (free is a bonus)


Yea but how many of them will then buy the album or go to see the band live .

Downloading introduces you to music you would otherwise never listen to

[Dodge]

Yea but how many of them will then buy the album or go to see the band live .

Downloading introduces you to music you would otherwise never listen to


Yeah, thats true

[John83]

The current copyright model is very broken for music distribution. It's just too easy to copy a file. Court cases, lobbying for sterner laws and introducing hideously anti-consumer DRM technologies is patching a failing structure. Sooner or later, musicians will be back to having to earn a living from concerts... except that they mostly do that now, with their labels and CD manufacturing and distribution companies making the vast bulk of the money off of CD sales. The need for these people is disappearing - already there are bands appearing in the charts with no label, no physical merchandise. This is where it's going, and there's no room for the music industry there, so they're fighting it tooth and nail.

[Marked Man]

It'll be a long long while before anybody is prosecuted for downloading the odd album


Already happened here in the U.S.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Well if he is "sharring" them then he is doing so with out making any money from them .

If he was selling the tracks thats different .
I'm hazarding a guess that there are very few people out there who would indulge the expense, bandwidth and general upkeep involved in "sharing" 180,000 audio files of a quality anyone would be interested in accessing -unless there was something beyond a love of listening to good tunes involved. He might not be making a penny off the actual files changing hands -but could be cleaning up selling ad-space on his site.

Either way, notwithstanding that the law has not caught up with the technology and reality, he is pirating copyrighted material and facilitating others who do likewise. He most likely knew this and knew the risks full well but decided the risk was worth it for the rewards.



As a metallica fan you ll know first hand the problems they have suffered and the millions it cost them going against the downloaders ( napster ) , Went from being one of the biggest bands in the world to being a laughing stock .

When a band of multi millionares attack the people that gave them everything they have over an extra few quid it sickens me . An artist should just be happy so many people listen to there music ( guess who saw south park :D)

Well this is complex. In my own case ...given the choice between someone accessing my songs for free or not accessing them at all I say plug away. While I don't agree with the tack Metallica took on this I think it took guts on their part to face down Napster knowing the "not cool"/ "out of touch" wrath that would surely follow.

Where Lars Ulrich showed himself to be most out of touch with reality imo was in his ludicrous metaphoric assertion that if someone can swap his songs for free then he (Lars) should get his car fixed for free and pick up his groceries for free too. I suspect Lars knows full well that his mechanic did not walk eyes open into an industry where his craft and it's fruits could be replicated almost instantaneously with 100% fidelity to the original. He's comparing apples and oranges.

That Metallica are wealthy though is materially irrelevant ...if you feel that someone is ripping you off then you have recourse to the courts to get compensated. They actually took a big hit in credibility terms while bands of similar mega-status like REM and U2 looked on from the sidelines ...materially interested in the outcome but not willing to put their own heads in the noose as it were. I recall Peter Buck saying he was just happy he made his money in the 80's which, while I appreciate his honesty, I thought was fairly cowardly and selfish of the guy.

In the long run I think Metallica'll be given credit for bringing the thing to a head and highlighting the need to update legislation to keep pace with emerging technologies because when it comes to technolgy -that which can happen will happen.

Oh ...and they're still one of the biggest bands in the world. I'm off to see Droghedas finest "Metallitia" tonight actually ...if I can find a babysitter!:cool:

[Lionel Ritchie]

It'll be a long long while before anybody is prosecuted for downloading the odd album

A friend of mine, not here in Ireland but within the EU, recently recieved a legal letter issued on behalf of a major film company informing him they were aware he had recently downloaded a pirated copy of a movie release. He was instructed to provide evidence within 30 days that the file had been deleted and any copies destroyed or they'd be taking the matter further.

How he's supposed to provide evidence that something doesn't exist anymore I'm not sure.

No Bullsh1t!!!

[Lionel Ritchie]

The current copyright model is very broken for music distribution. It's just too easy to copy a file. Court cases, lobbying for sterner laws and introducing hideously anti-consumer DRM technologies is patching a failing structure. Sooner or later, musicians will be back to having to earn a living from concerts... except that they mostly do that now, with their labels and CD manufacturing and distribution companies making the vast bulk of the money off of CD sales. The need for these people is disappearing - already there are bands appearing in the charts with no label, no physical merchandise. This is where it's going, and there's no room for the music industry there, so they're fighting it tooth and nail.

I'll cry no tears for major labels crashing to earth. But what's missing from the music industys ever decreasing circle you describe is that, for the vast majority, bands can't go back to touring and earning a living from live concerts.

I've been called a killjoy for saying it on other threads but it's a matter of fact that, in Europe at very least, there are simply too many fcuking festivals on nowadays.
It's making it impossible for bands to tour because...

*APATHY/INDIFFERENCE -the numbers of people going to gigs is in decline and has been for some time. There is a large amount of blame for this directly attributable to festivals. "Ah sure I'll be seeing them at Oxygen/Glastonbury/Download".

Ask anyone working in your local circuit venue. Here in Limerick that'd be Dolans and a glance at their line-up confirms who and what is keeping them afloat. By the end of June Limerick people will have had the chance to see Johnny Cash, Bon Jovi, The Cure, The Pixies, Metallica, Nirvana and Foo Fighters Tribute Bands. Not knocking tribute bands -used be in a couple actually -but that's the reality on the ground now.

If a band can't tour venues of that capacity and comfortablly fill them -they probably can't turn a profit on a tour. Even one man acts of the profile of Mundy and Declan O'Rourke are playing the much smaller Upstairs venue.

*PRESSURE FROM LABELS -it suits record companies to have their bands on the bill of a festival rather than going out on tour. The one benefit festivals like Oxygen have been shown to bring is a peak in record sales of artists on the bill in the fortnight after the festival. So the record company shifts records (of which the band will see 10% or less of the net profit) in a short period of time increasing the chances of the record charting and doesn't have to give the band "tour support" (finance them going on tour). So the band misses out on tour support, doesn't get to sell it's own merchandise at gigs (T-Shirts for example are a huge revenue seam for bands with any kind of a profile ...several examples out there of bands who's tees sell as well and better than their records -Ramones and Motorhead for example) and all the while the "gig circuit" that bands tour is dissolving and becoming fragmented.
Once it's gone it's very difficult if not impossible to get a circuit back because the punters are out of the habit of going to gigs.

*PRESSURE FROM FESTIVALS - I played one festival in the UK ten years ago. We were a small band on at lunchtime on a p1ss-ant stage (mean fiddler or NME tent ...can't remember) and we'd to sign a contract agreeing not to perform in the UK for three months prior to the festival. This is common.

[pete]

The recent CDWOW court case (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/cd-wow_to_appeal_parallel_importing_damages/) was another blow to consumers. The courts seem to be saying that companies can licence their products (CDs) for distribution in global regions. Could this be argued as being a cartel on prices? I think the EU also allow designer clothes manufacturers do the same thing.

Will the courts also stop people purchasing CDs in the US? Will they outlaw region free DVD players?

Is there any legal alternative to iTunes in Ireland?

If I did not download cheap music I would never buy the same music on CD as I will probably not listen to a lot of it more than once or twice. A lot of music I would download is back catalogue too...

[Soper]

The quality of music is lacking these days in all genres, which is a shame.

Also, major labels put a ridiculous mark up on some formats (vinyl for one), which means the shops have to as well, which results in the consuer having the pay roughly 30 euros for the vinyl version of an album.

[anto1208]

Also the quality of the actual CD is terrible i remember when CD's first came along you could really give them a hard time and they would still play perfectly . Now it seems you only have to look at a cd and its scratched and as for the box id say 80% of my cd cases are broken

[Soper]

Oh yeah, I know what you mean about cd's scratching. Some of them a=have become transluscent after no more than 3 plays. I still like buying music though. I just also like being able to hear music through downloading that I would never have heard otherwise.