A topic that came up at the beginning of our Media Studies AS level course was the impact that MP3's had on the music industry and the postivies and negatives as a consumer. It was calculated that the music industry has lost billions of pounds in the last few years due to MP3's, and have been coming up with several methods to stop the music being "ripped" from the CD, and put into MP3 format.

After seeing an album advertised on TV (Evanescence - Fallen), I thought that it was very much my kind of music, like Linkin Park but with a female vocalist, and tried downloading it from usual places like Kazaa. However, I discovered that throughout several of the tracks, an annoying tone played.. It was like an phone "error" tone do doo doooo. Thus making it pointless in writing the tracks to a CD since the tone would get very annoying, very quickly.

Has anyone disovered any other CD's like this, or discovered music distributors using other methods to stop music being "ripped".?

i have a few arguments against the first paragraph, which i cant be bothered to go into too much detail at the moment, so i'll just summerise them


CD Single Regulations - They claim CD single sales are down due to MP3's... this I dispute definatly, because they reduced the maximum number of tracks down to 3 (and one video where needed) and raised the RRP to £1.99~3.99 as before it was 99p~£2.99, this is more of a reason in declining single sales
poor arguments - when CD's were introduced, people copied them onto TAPE and when MD arrived people copied CD's onto MD, this is exactly like ripping a track to MP3, only because it provides a simple solution they can all pat themselves on the back and claim to have won the war, that is until they release piracy protection and phillips/sony sue'd them
strictness againsts bands - nowadays bands arent allowed to give away freebies with CDs, which is daft to be honest, as well as awarding stupid money to talentless fools like Robbie Williams, which has basically caused alot of my fave bands on the same record label to split due to the company turning round and saying sorry lads, we've got no money to offer you a contract, or well you arent getting into the top 10 so we'll have to drop you..



i recomend CDex for ripping tracks, never failed me yet

It's been reported that Sony are going to try to seek legal action against the people who are actually downloading the music. They admitted that they would not be able to get everyone but would be able to get some. How they could manage to be successful in court against an individual is beyond me. To me MP3 downloads is something that the record companies wish they would have thought of and developed but they were too busy creaming it in and missed the boat.

Ooooh they are a greedy lot. I bet they get paid way more than doctors yet theyre still moaning about losing money. The entertainment business is important but lets face it they dont deserve as much as they get.

Whats the matter boss of sony? havent you got enough money for that extra rolls royce you want so badly? aw poor you!

This is why ill download mp3s all i want and not get ripped off for CDs.

Originally posted by Neo
A topic that came up at the beginning of our Media Studies AS level course was the impact that MP3's had on the music industry and the postivies and negatives as a consumer. It was calculated that the music industry has lost billions of pounds in the last few years due to MP3's, and have been coming up with several methods to stop the music being "ripped" from the CD, and put into MP3 format.

After seeing an album advertised on TV (Evanescence - Fallen), I thought that it was very much my kind of music, like Linkin Park but with a female vocalist, and tried downloading it from usual places like Kazaa. However, I discovered that throughout several of the tracks, an annoying tone played.. It was like an phone "error" tone do doo doooo. Thus making it pointless in writing the tracks to a CD since the tone would get very annoying, very quickly.

Has anyone disovered any other CD's like this, or discovered music distributors using other methods to stop music being "ripped".?

Have you heard evanescence live?? Oh my god they are awful, truly dreadful and it made me cringe. That woman cannot sing to save her life, GOD KNOWS how they managed to hide the fact in the studio when they were recording the song!

How they calculate the lossess due to piracy is by estimating how many mp3 files are traded and how much it would cost to buy said tracks. Thats how much you've lost. I'm sure you can see the problem already. They assume that the punters would have bought the music if it was not available on mp3. Rubbish.

It's quite interesting how the software industry measures piracy. A group of them sit around and decide what software the world needs, say somehow they come up with 100,000 spam filters. Now they calculate how much a spam filter costs, say £10. So how much is that altogether? £1 million. How much was spent on spam filters £100K say. So there must be £900k of pirated spam filters out there.

You've got to laugh.

The record industry has just got to accept that MP3's are just another media format, just like vinyl, CD etc.

I personally think the 2 compliment each other. I may hear something on the radio, download a couple of tracks and then go out and buy the full CD.

A copied CD is just not the same as having a pucca one with inserts and lyrics etc, bit like the old vinyl album covers they used to be a work of art, you used to be proud to show of your Led Zepplin 2 Foldout Album cover.

Lets keep the price low of CD's and make it a real incentive to buy the real thing.

We are like Mikey - if we like the tracks enough we will go out and buy the full CD.
But why should I waste my money on a full album with one good song on it??

Also a lot of stuff on KaZaA isn't available anymore For example

Arlo Guthrie - Alice's Restaurant

My mother told me I would never find this track and my uncle has an orginal vinyl copy.

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by mikey
The record industry has just got to accept that MP3's are just another media format, just like vinyl, CD etc.

I personally think the 2 compliment each other. I may hear something on the radio, download a couple of tracks and then go out and buy the full CD.

A copied CD is just not the same as having a pucca one with inserts and lyrics etc, bit like the old vinyl album covers they used to be a work of art, you used to be proud to show of your Led Zepplin 2 Foldout Album cover.

Lets keep the price low of CD's and make it a real incentive to buy the real thing.

Similar to what I do.

I tend to download some new artists, then if I like them, i'll go and buy the CD and rip that CD to MP3, so I can listen to it when on the PC :)

Then the album goes off to my CD Rack so I can listen to it when im at the Hi-Fi

I just rob MP3s off my colleagues' computers.

I work for a software company, so there's always something interesting to find :D :D :D

I personally think that if they had an agreement with companies such as Kazaa and iMesh that NO main stream artist music wouold be on their systems and only artists that want their music running through these systems (as a way of getting public attention).

Then companies such as Virgin, HMV etc setup databases with all music available and charge a monthly, annual or pay-as-you-go subscription for unlimited downloadable music.

Something which is cheaper than buying over priced CD's but actually still creates the required revenue for the artists!

Maybe if CDs were more realistically priced, more people would just buy the CD rather than download illegally. People will always copy music though, whether its by recording from the radio or downloading an mp3. Just because someone has an illegal copy of a song doesn't automatically mean that this same person would've bought the song if it wasn't available for free illegal download. Equally, people may download illegally as a preview to the song and then go out and buy the hard copy to put in their car or in their hi-fi. I will continue downloading mp3s off kazaa. I never really did buy CDs, and never will. If they manage to stop all illegal copies from being downloaded I'll just switch on the radio, I won't suddenly start buying the CDs.

MP3 is, without doubt, probably the best thing that has happened to audio since the compact disc back in the early 80's.

The quality is tremendous, it can be played on almost anything electronic and the file size is quite acceptable if you have broadband.

Instead of trying to kill it, music companies should be embracing it and making their back catalogues available for a small fee. I certainly wouldn't have any qualms about paying 50p or so for a song. What are the alternatives? I go out and buy an album just for one song I like? Or download it from WinMX or Kazaa for free and the record company loses 50p?

One thing is certain: The momentum is too great for anyone to stop MP3 now. Napster died and more just took it's place. This is one war that record companies aren't going to win. They have made billions from us in the past and now it looks like their Goose that laid the golden eggs is dying their instinct is to lash out and get who they can.

If they want us to start buying music again, then for God's sake give us some proper artists who can play instruments instead of manufactured rubbish with a six month shelf life. The charts these days is nothing more than karaoke.

I saw TOTP2 the other night, which showed "baby I don't care" by Transvision Vamp, and there was much more passion and performance in that than the current cover by that Scouse blonde from Brookside. Her 'performance' was completely lacklustre added with her showing her ability to stand and put one leg behind her head. And that is supposed to sell records? Good luck record companies, you are going to need it!

As a small independent musician, with a small independent recording studio which he relies on for half his income, my father has never had a problem with pirating. It gets the music heard, and it doesn't really impact on sales except in a positive way (if you like it you go buy it). I reckon if he can cope, billion dollar companies can.
They're just being greedy.

The record companies are completely out of touch. They could turn MP3's into billions in revenue within a month.

mmmm...

could you expand on that monkjack?

Lets group people together for a minute.

You've got your teenagers who listen to Girls Aloud, Gareth Gates. Beyonce, and other such manufactured / glossy bands, who basically keep the singles market going.

You've got your adults who like a bit of anything and nothing, not particuarly fussed, radio 1 or radio 2, it doesn't matter it's all music.

You've got your music lover who has their own music taste. People who support the bands they like, and like a lot of other stuff besides. The kind of people who listen to Bob Harris on Radio 2, or Jools Holland on BBC 2.

Obviously this is stereotyping and not all people fit into these categories.

If the record companies came along and charged 10p per track, all properly recorded and compressed, in different qualities, with no restrictions on use (because they can't stop it anyway, but its the attitude that counts), then people would download more music, and just as indiscriminately. Transport (bandwidth) costs are almost nil on a 3mb MP3 (say 0.3p per MP3).

Your teenagers will download everything by Gareth and Beyonce, including all the remixes. Lots of 10p's add up.

Your non fussed like anything group will continue to not really be big music purchasers.

Your music lover will download lots and lots of new stuff, trying new material all the time. Again lots of 10's add up.

The first and third groups will net a fortune. They are the people who buy single and albums respectively. The second group are the people who used to buy the odd Bryan Adam's album, and don't really spend a lot of music anyway.

I'm in the third group. Before the internet came along, I used to buy 2/3 albums a month. Not a great deal, but I used to stick with the people I knew, buying the back catalogue (I liked bands from the 60's and 70's who had a lot of previous releases for me to catch up on) because I wasn't going to spend £10 on someone I'd not heard before. Since the internet has come along, I've bought 6 albums in 3 years, and 4 of them were re-releases of an artist I collect regardless. My friend has around 500 CD's and used to buy 10-15 a month, he now has bought I'd guess 5 in a year.

All because the cd's are too expensive. Not only that, but its far too expensive to experiment, you might spend £10 on some real crap. And no one showcases anyone but the chart hits. Where would you hear Rick Wakeman or Jethro Tull if you hadn't heard them before, and those are the popular acts out of the ones I like ! Never mind artists like Hem or Yanni.

Since the internet the artists I listen to has exploded, at least 10 times over from around 4-5 to over 50 easily. These are people who I'd download and listen to on a regular basis, and would make a point of getting all their albums, and then there's all the people I download to see what they're like and listen to on an ad hoc basic.

I would happily pay 10p per track, and everyone I talk to on this subject says that price would certainly get them to pay. All this £1 a song on pressplay, etc is ridiculous. Puts it back up to £15 for an album, so you might as well buy the CD.

At 10p per track, it would not stop the indiscriminate downloading that I do at the moment. Neither would it stop the teenagers, since they happily spend 10p to say, "Wkd BB4 Cam 2 wn luv Beck XXX'.

At 4000 MP3's the record company would have made £400 from me in around a year. So far this year they've taken £30 and thats due to the previously mentioned re-releases which is a one off. And while 4000 might sound a lot, I'm surprisingly fussy about how I download - only people I genuinely listen to. Most people I know just download everything and anything, having 20,000 + MP3's is not common.

They need to act fast before everyone has the entire back catalogues of everyone they like.

Sorry if this is a daft question.

Can anyone suggest some good sites where I can get mp3s from.

Once looked on google and it did my head in.

Thanks in advance.

iMesh... Kazaa... etc :lol: :lol:

Originally posted by monkjack
If the record companies came along and charged 10p per track, all properly recorded and compressed, in different qualities, with no restrictions on use (because they can't stop it anyway, but its the attitude that counts), then people would download more music, and just as indiscriminately. Transport (bandwidth) costs are almost nil on a 3mb MP3 (say 0.3p per MP3).

I'd happily pay upto 50p per track. If it's a quality song you're getting, one that will stand the test of time, then I think it's well worth it.

Some of the filler on albums these days is worth nothing. With this in mind, perhaps making songs time dependent or of a really low quality. If it is just rubbish album filler, you've lost nothing. But, if it's good, then download the high quality version.

Originally posted by richard
How they calculate the lossess due to piracy is by estimating how many mp3 files are traded and how much it would cost to buy said tracks. Thats how much you've lost. I'm sure you can see the problem already. They assume that the punters would have bought the music if it was not available on mp3. Rubbish.

It's quite interesting how the software industry measures piracy. A group of them sit around and decide what software the world needs, say somehow they come up with 100,000 spam filters. Now they calculate how much a spam filter costs, say £10. So how much is that altogether? £1 million. How much was spent on spam filters £100K say. So there must be £900k of pirated spam filters out there.

You've got to laugh.

Don't forget. Piracy funds Terrorism! :lol:

I was wondering. How do these Music Clubs survive these days. If anyone has been hit hard by Music downloads then surely it must be these clubs. Perhaps they might consider bringing their overpriced CD's down now.

Overpriced is well correct. Same with Movie clubs (Brittania), they are a rip off! £16.99 for a DVD that costs £7 in town! Stupid i tells ya!

Reviving an old post here...

The thing that I find funny is your companies like sony who sell CD Writers, but when you use them they complain lol.

As for downloading try www.piolet.com a small prog with no spyware, just like the old Napster

With regard to the original poster's comment about a tone appearing in downloaded stuff, the record companies are getting quite cunning in their old age.

They rip their own MP3s from discs, adulterate them with tone, white noise or even a little message saying 'Piracy is Theft' or some other such statement. Then they inject these files in to the peer to peer networks in large numbers, the intention being to swamp the unadulterated copies.

They're relying on the old saw called 'Gresham's Law' - the bad drives out the good.

Of course, if media companies get their way and force all MP3 players and such to include checks to see whether the media being played is DMCA compliant, we'll all have to seriously get in to role your own MP3 players....:-)

Joe

Your best bet for getting free music is to hope they continue to put protection on audio CDs.

Even though it may not play on your PC or in your car, you can still extract the songs to MP3 with no trouble whatsoever.

Then, just take the CD back to the shop and say it won't play on your equipment because of the copy protection and you can get a refund!

You are always going to need a hard copy for backup anyway.
Buy the album, rip it, file it and enjoy it.

When will the music industry learn that they can get all huffy and puffy about MP3s all they like, but people won't care.... Cos people have been downloading them since the likes of Kazaa et al were first invented and are unlikely to stop doing so unless they're the type who gets paranoid about not wanting to get "done" for it.

Originally posted by Rich
..... unless they're the type who gets paranoid about not wanting to get "done" for it.

You mean people who respect the law?

Wow this thread IS a blast from the past huh.
Well I stand my original comments from all those months ago.

CDs, DVDs (although not as much these days) are still way over priced. The cost to produce these things is so cheap yet they still charge way OTT prices for em.

It's about time the record companies stopped trying to rip of their customers and gave the public what they want. OK what they want is everything free, however the next best thing is stuff cheap.

I'm not interested in album covers, lyrics on the inside of the booklet or any of that cack. What I want is the music, the good stuff, the essence of the CD. Gimme that for next to nowt and I'll buy it. Try and rip me off and I'll get it somewhere else.

Wake up and smell the coffee EMI, Sony etc. Give us all a fair deal and we'll come back your way.
I mean stopping CD Wow from selling CD's a reasonable prices and allowing the rest of Europe to benefit was low IMO.

Originally posted by RPG


CD Single Regulations - They claim CD single sales are down due to MP3's... this I dispute definatly, because they reduced the maximum number of tracks down to 3 (and one video where needed) and raised the RRP to £1.99~3.99 as before it was 99p~£2.99, this is more of a reason in declining single sales



I used to be a big fan of CD singles, didn't mind spending a couple quid to two quid to listen to an up and coming band. Since prices have risen I haven't bought one, would rather save my money and get a whole album for just over £9 from a supermarket.

You could of course go for independant music from a source like CD Baby (http://www.cdbaby.com) and buy almost direct from the artist.

Just don't expect to find Blue in there. ;)

Originally posted by DaBouncer
CDs, DVDs (although not as much these days) are still way over priced. The cost to produce these things is so cheap yet they still charge way OTT prices for em.

Not that old arguement, yes I'm sure cd's cost 1p to actually make.

But how much do you think it actually costs the artist to create the production in the first place.
Equipment, studio's, Producers, Engineers, Managers, Designers, PR, a list way too long to print here.
It all as to be recouped.

All before the artist actually takes home any money for their efforts.

At the end of the day cd's and other comparisons are a luxury
and not a given right!

I don't expect the labels to just sit back and watch people get their product for nowt, while their buisiness goes down the drain:loopy:
How many out there would work for nothing?

I'm sure they'll be plenty of pushing and shoveing for a while,
and a happy medium will be resolved in a couple of years.

I personally think they will be space for both Mp3's and hard copies.
Because if your computer goes down ( which it will ) that's your collection gone!

Originally posted by Lickszz
Don't forget. Piracy funds Terrorism! :lol: You are casually humorous about it, and in this case (file sharing) rather than selling counterfeit CDS does not support anyone apart from Kazaa advertisers.

File sharing and Piracy are not one and the same IMO.

File sharing is a not for profit mutual relationship. Piracy is knocking off copies, and pretending they are bona fide.

But if you buy a counterfeit DVD, I'd like to know how you know that the money isn't funding arms purchases and organised crime elsewhere.

Certainly the provos were quick to understand the earning potential of drugs, counterfeit products and loansharking, why should any other terrorist organisation not understand this?

Phan, I agree that if you give your money to DVD and CD pirates, the money is quite likely to end up involved in something worse.

But to a leser degree you never know when your money may be getting involved in something more shady, how much responsibility should you take for that though?

For example in the music industry, EMI are a pretty big music publisher, and what are they? an arms manufacturer and trader.
Okay arms trading isn't necessarilty illegal - but you see what I'm saying.

Absolutely Yoda, one has to make a judgement call, and if carried to its logical conclusion, one would only buy locally handcrafted, reared or grown goods.

But like that kid recently indicted, making a few million with counterfeit CDs and DVDs is childs play; and as such is a very lucrative proposition, especially if your bank doesn't do unsecured gun buying loans.

It makes me laugh when it is said we are robbing the Artists, surely they earn a crust at the likes of Sheffield Arena, I remember my ex taking my 3 kids to see westlife 35 quid each.

Then you have the Karaoke Argument, saying downloading these robs them too, but the tracks have already made thier money before they are released as a Karaoke Track, what annoys me with Karaoke is that you have people like me who buys the latest releases but we get no discount, ok we make a living from it, but so do other trades but they get discounts.

Over the years I've spent thousands on music, at the same price per disc, record etc as everyone else, for years we have been ripped off, and if we are honest music today is not as appreciated as it was years ago, nowadays most competant PC users can recreate most of the boom boom around at the min

Originally posted by MrDJ
It makes me laugh when it is said we are robbing the Artists, surely they earn a crust at the likes of Sheffield Arena, I remember my ex taking my 3 kids to see westlife 35 quid each.

Artists actually earn more from live appearances etc these days than they do from royalties - although to be fair royalties are an ongoing income, live appearances are a lump sum.

But I've heard the argument before that if you want to support the artists but like the odd download or two, pay for concert tickets and that way the artist/band is getting a higher % of the profits.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You are casually humorous about it, and in this case (file sharing) rather than selling counterfeit CDS does not support anyone apart from Kazaa advertisers.

File sharing and Piracy are not one and the same IMO.

File sharing is a not for profit mutual relationship. Piracy is knocking off copies, and pretending they are bona fide.

But if you buy a counterfeit DVD, I'd like to know how you know that the money isn't funding arms purchases and organised crime elsewhere.

Certainly the provos were quick to understand the earning potential of drugs, counterfeit products and loansharking, why should any other terrorist organisation not understand this?

Did you forget the meaning of a smiley, one that I made a very long time ago.

Besides, we have been though all this in another thread in which you didn't seem too bothered about continuing at the time but now seem to bring it up again in this thread.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Did you forget the meaning of a smiley, one that I made a very long time ago.

If you mean, did I notice the smiley - yes I did. Still not sure whether it means you think that the idea that media piracy funds terrorism is funny, or whether you think that its untrue, or whether you are just happy to assert that it does fund terrorism, as you eloquently explained in the other post.
Originally posted by Lickszz
In Northern Ireland the market for 'Manufacture & distribution' of the bulk of this lucrative market was taken over by the IRA.


Besides, we have been though all this in another thread in which you didn't seem too bothered about continuing at the time but now seem to bring it up again in this thread.

That is because I very rarely browse the forums, preferring instead to use the "View new posts" option.

Call me fickle. :)

A band called muse did a download only single a couple of years ago which cost £1. They had 25000 downloads in the first couple of days which would have given them a number 1 hit in that week.
£25000 in their pockets with very little outlay. No street teams having to go into the chart return shops, very little spent on publicity, not having to buy the services of a plugger and a new step forward in they way music can be marketed.
This was also the first step in sorting out the major music shops like Virgin, HMV ect who take the biggest cut of the price of a CD.
Downloads from official sites are now going to be included in the charts.
One of the interesting steps that the major labels have taken in the last couple of years isn't really anything to do with records. They have started to look at image rights, tour profits, merch and mobile phone ring tones. Before most of this money went to the band but the labels are starting to want a bigger cut of the money sloshing around and they are wanting a bigger cut of the publishing rights which is where the real money is.
If you want anymore info on this subject I have got loads knocking aroud


I'm a music promoter and MP3s are a godsend for me. Most bands have a website with MP3s on so I can check out the band before booking them in for a gig.
A popular local band called Daybreak are going to let one of their new tracks be downloaded from a sheffield music website called www.soundaloud.com over the weekend.
Mp3s are a flexible tool and it only needs a little bit of imagination to use them effectivly.
ie you can download any 4 tracks from this album for free as long as you sign up for the mailing list and put in a current mobile phone number. This will greatly increase your mailing list and hopefully increase the number of people at your gigs.

This was in The guardian the other day. It's worth a read
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1280761,00.html

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
If you mean, did I notice the smiley - yes I did. Still not sure whether it means you think that the idea that media piracy funds terrorism is funny, or whether you think that its untrue, or whether you are just happy to assert that it does fund terrorism, as you eloquently explained in the other post.




Call me fickle. :)

I also stated why it was possible for the IRA to do this. It seems that because the IRA were able to utilize this (many years ago) it is ok to assume that Piracy is funding other terrorism - which is most unlikely.

Originally posted by Modesty
Not that old arguement, yes I'm sure cd's cost 1p to actually make.

But how much do you think it actually costs the artist to create the production in the first place.
Equipment, studio's, Producers, Engineers, Managers, Designers, PR, a list way too long to print here.
It all as to be recouped.

All before the artist actually takes home any money for their efforts.
That's not my problem. Maybe the artists should get a better deal from their agency if that's the case. Why expect me to foot the OTT bill. I wont end of!

And as far as my PC going down, that's why I have a CD burner ;)
Always thinking!

If you're happy paying inflated costs to line the pockets of fat cat record companies bosses, more fool you. It's not down to working for nothing (which I do sometimes when I volunteer to help out those in need - can you say the same? :roll: ), it's about offering the UK consumer a fair and just price.

We used to have that from companies from CD Wow not wanting to rip of the UK. However big record companies didn't agree with that and forced them to charge more. It's ridiculous, it's greedy and I wont stand for it.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I also stated why it was possible for the IRA to do this. It seems that because the IRA were able to utilize this (many years ago) it is ok to assume that Piracy is funding other terrorism - which is most unlikely.

Its not only likely that piracy funds other terrorism - it is certain.

CD/DVD Piracy, even when the discs sell for 40p each, is money for old rope. Burgeoning markets for media and entertainment mean that product can easily be trafficked and distributed without suspicion - worldwide.

Outlaw organisations of all kinds have been swift to capitalise, definitely including terrorists.

Why is it certain? Which established 'known' terrorist groups other than the IRA has it been directly linked with? I don't mean words like:

'possible terrorist links'
'alleged terrorist links'
'suspected terrorist links'
'appears to support terrorism'
'indications of terrorist linkage'

I mean a Direct Link.

Didn't you read my other post, I stated why the IRA were able to do this because their situation was unique at that time. One actual advert seen at the movies was challenged and the only reason it was not upheld was because the crime had funded some paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, there was no reference to any other groups.

Many of the articles I have read make an accusation without any positive grounds. They proceeded to accuse unauthorized CD producers of funding terrorism, but at the same time citing no grounds for this except that some of them are in Argentina, India or Pakistan.

There are kids at my brother's school selling CDs for a quid and DVDs for £1.50. I can't imagine that that is going to fund terrorism (other than maybe buying white lightning cider and terrorising poeple on Stradbroke shops)

A quick google reveals some speculative, some authoritative and some factual reports of links between counterfeiting and terrorism:

US House Committee report (http://www.bva.org.uk/content.asp?id=13420)

It is well known among enforcement agencies that terrorist groups use DVD piracy to fund their activities.

Another House committee report (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/valenti031303.htm)

... the participants at the 1st International Conference on IPR hosted by Interpol in Lyon, France in 2001 “all agreed the evidence was indisputable: a lucrative trafficking in counterfeit and pirate products – music, movies, seed patents, software, tee-shirts, Nikes, knock-off CDs and ‘fake drugs’ accounts for much of the money the international terrorist network depends on to feed its operations.”

Lastly, White paper on International/Global Intellectual Property theft: Links to terrorism and terrorist organisations.

White paper (http://www.iacc.org/teampublish/uploads/WhitePaper.pdf)

Plenty of proof and lots of speculation scattered throughout. Enjoy. :D

Originally posted by Lickszz
Why is it certain? Which established 'known' terrorist groups other than the IRA has it been directly linked with?...


Why "other than the IRA"? are they not a terrorist organisation?

This Guy (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js909.htm) is a terrorist. I guess he used to be a gang lord and underworld don, but the company he keeps and his tendenciy to blow things up has had him reclassified of late.

He pirates CDs and DVDs. Millions of them.


Didn't you read my other post, I stated why the IRA were able to do this because their situation was unique at that time. One actual advert seen at the movies was challenged and the only reason it was not upheld was because the crime had funded some paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, there was no reference to any other groups.

Many of the articles I have read make an accusation without any positive grounds. They proceeded to accuse unauthorized CD producers of funding terrorism, but at the same time citing no grounds for this except that some of them are in Argentina, India or Pakistan.

Dawod Ibrahim has definitely got big CD duplication plants in Pakistan. He is definitely a terrorist....

Terrorism is certainly funded by CD/DVD/Software Piracy. Not all piracy, not all terrorism, but how do you tell? (hint: look for the "ethical piracy" label :rolleyes: )