if you download music off the net what do you think about the bpi crackdown ?

I think as long as it is within reason and you are not doing it for profit making purposes downloading copyrighted music barely harms anyone.

In fact, I believe repeated studies have shown that downloading doesn't harm the music industry and if anything it gets people more interested in up and coming bands becasue they can "listen before they buy" or maybe just listen to some tracks and then go and watch bands live that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

What's the latest with the crackdown?

dont bother because these site are full of viruses:rant:

Someone's been on Kazaa :hihi:

it's bad.

Artists make no money from album sales. They make money from touring. The more people who listen to the album the more people are likely to tour.

The BPI are cracking down on people with 200 or less songs on share . That is less than 20 items. I would be happy if they cracked down on the real exploiters but left folk who just want to listen to a bit more music alone.

i had better watch myself then because i use an illegal music site link removed and have got 50 downladed songs on there :mad:

I thought downloading music was on a par with recording from the radio etc and can't understand why, if something is illegal, that it's relatively easy to do.
If, as Yodameister mentions, it's purely for personal pleasure then it's hardly a criminal offence is it?

the only reason i download music is to see if i like it. If i do then i go and buy the single/album but i am still worried as they have been dishing out £4000 fines :help: :help:

all the peoples names i saw had all been downloading from kazza so that on its on shows they have no idea. I prefer the full album same bit rate in one go

They make enough money from touring and stuff- i don't pay full price to line the pockets of the fat cats of the music industry- when they bring down the price of albums to an acceptable level i will start buying them again!

the press are scaring lots of people.

the "users" being punished for downloading illegal music is not joe bloggs that downloads his songs and listens at home, at the minute they are going after the people who make 1000's of these songs available.

in theory if they crack down on the main suppliers people like craigmason can no longer download

at the end of the day, the people who have been fined knew the risks when they took part. however you try and dress it up you are breaking the law, but similar to speeding, people find the risks acceptable.

Most people need not worry for the moment as they are only targeting the people who do the most uploading (sharing 1000+ songs was the level in america, not sure what they have over hear yet). More recent filesharing programs actually make it difficult to find out exactly how much you have downloaded anyway.

Also, as broadband providers start to charge for usage rather than by speed, you may start to find the people who download the most have to pay for it too... just not to the music industry.

Yep, as long as you don't make your files available for sharing you should be in the clear.

I don't really understand this strategy though, because if I have my facts straight (feel free to correct me), it is the actual downloading of songs that is illegal, not making files available for download.

Say I had a file server with all my private files on sitting on the internet unprotected. Although I would be incredibly stupid for doing it, surely if someone downloaded my files without my permission, they would be breaking the law, not me.

yep i have noticed when i have tried to download music it not all there. btw talking about iilegal downloads anyone no what happened to the guys flogging illegal playstation game's on the moor

Originally posted by craigmason
yep i have noticed when i have tried to download music it not all there. btw talking about iilegal downloads anyone no what happened to the guys flogging illegal playstation game's on the moor
If they were illegal, then they've probably been locked up!

i guess if u said, "i didnt know my pc full of music was on the internet, and configured accidently to allow people to access said files"

they would say "LIAR"

u are providing the illegal content, even if you were to claim to not know u were doing so.

as i said, if they stop the people making it available average joe has no means to download illegally

Originally posted by Sidla
Yep, as long as you don't make your files available for sharing you should be in the clear.

I don't really understand this strategy though, because if I have my facts straight (feel free to correct me), it is the actual downloading of songs that is illegal, not making files available for download.

Say I had a file server with all my private files on sitting on the internet unprotected. Although I would be incredibly stupid for doing it, surely if someone downloaded my files without my permission, they would be breaking the law, not me.

As far as I'm aware both downloading and file sharing Copyrighted music/film is illegal. Both are a breach of copyright.

The BPI seem to be targetting the worst abusers but also random small users to put the wind up.

After doing some research, this is my understanding of the situation:

Filesharing of copyrighted material is illegal. Full stop. It doesn't matter whether you are uploading or downloading, you're still in breach of copyright. Make no mistake, if you are using a peer-to-peer network to copy music or movies protected by copyright, you are acting illegally.

Recent "crackdowns" in the UK have targeted uploaders, rather than downloaders. That is, people who are sharing directories with large numbers of files. Their ISPs have been contacted and have passed on warnings.

What I'm not sure about is whether users of P2P networks like Kazaa have been hit harder than BitTorrent users, and how relatively easy it is to detect users using these different technologies. I get the feeling that "cease and desist" notices served on companies hosting BitTorrent trackers have prompted the launch of another P2P technology - "Exeem"(sp?) - but I haven't tried it out yet so can't give any indication of what it's like.

Anybody else tried it?

What's all the fuss about ? If you have not bought a licensed copy and upload it,download it, share, swap it lend it or whatever it is almost certainly illegal.Unless it is freeware, a lot of people do it (myself included) so stop trying to justify your actions.By the way AllofMp3 is good.

im not trying to justify it, i was trying to assure craigmason that dispite what he's heard in the media, currently u are likely to be targetted for uploading.

im sure everyone knows it is wrong, but he's downloading a few songs, he'll be fine.

as for exeem i gave it a try and search facility is poor, but that maybe due to limit users when i tried it.

and yes kazaa is easier to track what files u download and share compared to bit torrent and emule/donkey

i think illegal downloads are a great thing for music.
i for one can not afford to pay out £10 to find out whether or not i even like just one album.
illegal downloads mean i have access to all kinds of music that i wouldn't have heard otherwise. i do still buy albums but only the ones i really really like. this is the same for all my friends.

in my experience, torrent sites don't carry a huge virus risk, but then again i am a mac user so no site ever really does ;)

i am now thinking of ditching the hard copies though. my itunes are networked to my stereo and i no longer have need for a cd player.

i don't see the problem... just because a music industry developed and determined that everyone would have to pay to listen to music doesn't mean that this has to be the case forever does it?
i think music should be free for personal use. obviously if it is going to be used in a business context e.g. to advertise another product, it shouldn't be free.
at the end of the day music lovers will always find away to get something for nothing! one method is stopped e.g. napster, another develops e.g. bittorrent.

there are worse crimes than free art.

bands only get i'd say an average of 10% of sales (before costs) anyways and make money out of touring.
to relate this to sheffield, free downloads contributed enormously to the industry success of the artic monkeys. people tried before they bought.

Also, as broadband providers start to charge for usage rather than by speed, you may start to find the people who download the most have to pay for it too... just not to the music industry.

Most broadband providers seem to be going the other way, towards unlimited usage.

It's amazing the amount of music I've actually bought as a result of downloading music!! It's just one big try before you buy as far as I'm concerned.

Record companies make far too money for my liking, it's a pity more artists can't take control of their own stuff and cut them out.

If the artists sold music direct at 10p a track or 2p/min , then most people would pay for a mint authorised, high-bitrate version rather than try and hunt for it on some dodgy filesharing system. And they would make a lot more money too, even without layers of DRM crud.

The quality of downloaded music can be a bit crappy anyway so I always end-up buying the actual CD if I like the music, and I like to have the little booklet to read with the lyrics etc.

I have loads of music on vinyl which I paid for fair and square. Since moving to France, I've downloaded a lot of music which I already own as I couldn't take the original LPs away with me. Surely noone can complain about that. The only trouble is, you sometimes have to share to be able to download.

I download the occassional song, but I wouldn't class myself as a Pirate.

I will of course uninstall all P2P stuff as precautionary measure though, as I don't want to get done for anything.

I file share all the time.... I leave my system open all the time....Am I gonna be hauled before the Courts? :confused:

I use peer guardian to block incoming and outgoing connections based on IP blocklists.

The quality of downloaded music can be a bit crappy anyway so I always end-up buying the actual CD if I like the music, and I like to have the little booklet to read with the lyrics etc.
I agree, although there's no reason that legitimate downloaded files cannot be of higher quality than CD.

When I buy a CD now the crystal case and booklet go straight in the bin. The 'standard' case is the worst piece of design since the Austin Allegro. So I threw all of them away and put the inserts in a box. I said that if I looked at even one of them within six months I'd continue to keep them. They went the same way as the cases.

If I get a non-standard case, I'll usually hang on to it for a bit , but I will rarely listen to it off the CD either so periodically I gather up bought CD's, shell them and stick them in the big book. The only CD packaging I have kept is "Spiritualized - Ladies & Gentlemen we are floating in space B.P."

Now all my CDs live in three big CD books (from PC World), get ripped on purchase and end up on PhanFM for my listening pleasure.

Now all my CDs live in three big CD books (from PC World), get ripped on purchase and end up on PhanFM for my listening pleasure.

Arn't you breakign the law by playing them on your radio station. Do you have the rights to play them

I use peer guardian to block incoming and outgoing connections based on IP blocklists.

Likewise mate- I recommend everyone does the same as well :thumbsup:

Downloading music is illegal agreed- does that stop most people?
NO!

I use Limewire regularly, as long as you dont share or upload anything and you are behind a decent firewall/firewalled router- dont worry about it.
Stay away from the 'sponsored links' on Limewire as well by the way.

Anyway- if they did manage to kill off all the downloading sites/programs like Limewire.. pirates would just upload to a different site and it all kicks off again :)

I think a couple of things need explaining.

1. Not that many bands make money from touring, they actually tour to support the release and most money, if any, is made from merchandise.

2. Shops make more money out of a release than the artist.

3. Illegal downloads are killing small labels, if you don't support the label's and artist's you'll be left with nothing but bland "pop idol" bull****.

4. Some people think art/music should be free, fine - pop your name and address below and as a label owner/artist I'll nip round and help myself to the money in your wallet/purse, the food in the house, perhaps your CD/DVD collection and the TV because you seem to think that it's fine if people help themselves to something I've risked money on and spent a couple of years making....How do you think I pay the bills and feed the kids?

I think a couple of things need explaining...

4. Some people think art/music should be free, fine - pop your name and address below and as a label owner/artist I'll nip round and help myself to the money in your wallet/purse, the food in the house, perhaps your CD/DVD collection and the TV because you seem to think that it's fine if people help themselves to something I've risked money on and spent a couple of years making....How do you think I pay the bills and feed the kids?

You could make your music free (like it should be) and get a REAL job. Hippy:hihi:

If the artists sold music direct at 10p a track or 2p/min , then most people would pay for a mint authorised, high-bitrate version rather than try and hunt for it on some dodgy filesharing system. And they would make a lot more money too, even without layers of DRM crud.

You make an interesting point Phanny, however, when you add servers, bandwidth and merchant bank charges on your 10p, you'd actually be in debt by around 41p!!!!

You could make your music free (like it should be) and get a REAL job. Hippy:hihi:

Thanks for the sweeping stereotyping:hihi:

i think illegal downloads are a great thing for music.
i for one can not afford to pay out £10 to find out whether or not i even like just one album.
illegal downloads mean i have access to all kinds of music that i wouldn't have heard otherwise. i do still buy albums but only the ones i really really like. this is the same for all my friends.


I can see your point, I think a small subscription to stream songs and option to buy at a good price is the way forward.


in my experience, torrent sites don't carry a huge virus risk, but then again i am a mac user so no site ever really does ;)

i am now thinking of ditching the hard copies though. my itunes are networked to my stereo and i no longer have need for a cd player.


Torrents are a lot easier to trace, they stand out a mile on the ISP side of things and it won't be long before they are full of viruses


i don't see the problem... just because a music industry developed and determined that everyone would have to pay to listen to music doesn't mean that this has to be the case forever does it?
i think music should be free for personal use. obviously if it is going to be used in a business context e.g. to advertise another product, it shouldn't be free.
at the end of the day music lovers will always find away to get something for nothing! one method is stopped e.g. napster, another develops e.g. bittorrent.


I feel that you don't see the problem because you don't earn your living from it, and your view is a little odd, the logical just doesn't stand up because if that is the case can I everything you own? I know it's never happened before but you owning it doesn't mean that this has to be the case forever does it?


there are worse crimes than free art.


There are, but there's nothing worse than people not accepting responsibility.


bands only get i'd say an average of 10% of sales (before costs) anyways and make money out of touring.
to relate this to sheffield, free downloads contributed enormously to the industry success of the artic monkeys. people tried before they bought.

That figure is miles out and if you believe all the Monkeys PR spin well, bless :)

You make an interesting point Phanny, however, when you add servers, bandwidth and merchant bank charges on your 10p, you'd actually be in debt by around 41p!!!!
That's using the old centralised model that the industry needs to drop like a hot potato.

If the file sharers can do it for minimum cost, so can 'the industry', but it has to be willing to innovate, not react blindly to perceived losses.

The fact is that billions of large music files are served accross the internet without incurring massive charges every day, and I don't think for a moment that 2p/min is in anyway unrealistic. Especially since you scale your enterprise to match demand.

Currently 'the industry' calculates 'losses' based on the assumption that everyone who downloads a file illegally would have bought it if they couldn't download it. That is obviously codswallop.

And when industry leaders use stolen source code to put viruses on CDs designed to infect and subvert the customer's computer the moral high ground starts to look pretty swampy (for Sony at least).

Torrents themselves are not the files. So it's impossible to download a torrent, modify it with a virus, and then re-seed it as the same torrent, because it won't match the checksum carried by the thousands of other part-copies of the file in the swarm.

Viruses on torrents are quickly found and someone always leaves a comment to that effect.

The torrent model would work very well for the music industry as it offers good downloading characteristics for consumers (the more the better) and doesn't require huge amounts of (expensive) bandwidth. It already works well for the Open Source community for shipping large distros and patches around without having to rent a content server from akamai.

Arn't you breakign the law by playing them on your radio station. Do you have the rights to play them
PhanFM is misleading as it is no longer on FM (It was, if you sat in my garden last summer)

Technically if someone tunes in who I don't know then maybe, but mostly it's just me or me and a couple of invited friends listening. Same as if they were round my house, telepresence if you will.

That's using the old centralised model that the industry needs to drop like a hot potato.

If the file sharers can do it for minimum cost, so can 'the industry', but it has to be willing to innovate, not react blindly to perceived losses.


Mmmm that's a bit over simplistic Phanny. What it's reacting to is the scale I believe and the fact that most people think it's OK. I think there needs to be an attitude change on both sides to be honest.


The fact is that billions of large music files are served accross the internet without incurring massive charges every day, and I don't think for a moment that 2p/min is in anyway unrealistic. Especially since you scale your enterprise to match demand.


But it probably cost you £12 a month to pay me 2p :( And your model only works on large scale, not for a smaller artist.


Currently 'the industry' calculates 'losses' based on the assumption that everyone who downloads a file illegally would have bought it if they couldn't download it. That is obviously codswallop.


Well yes, me and you know the score but the law deals in hard facts


And when industry leaders use stolen source code to put viruses on CDs designed to infect and subvert the customer's computer the moral high ground starts to look pretty swampy (for Sony at least).


I agree, they got that one wrong :)


Torrents themselves are not the files. So it's impossible to download a torrent, modify it with a virus, and then re-seed it as the same torrent, because it won't match the checksum carried by the thousands of other part-copies of the file in the swarm.

Viruses on torrents are quickly found and someone always leaves a comment to that effect.


Sorry mate but this is also wrong, it can be done and with ease if you know what you are doing and it could sit on your machine for months without you knowing.


The torrent model would work very well for the music industry as it offers good downloading characteristics for consumers (the more the better) and doesn't require huge amounts of (expensive) bandwidth. It already works well for the Open Source community for shipping large distros and patches around without having to rent a content server from akamai.

It will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure.

Yep, as long as you don't make your files available for sharing you should be in the clear.

I don't really understand this strategy though, because if I have my facts straight (feel free to correct me), it is the actual downloading of songs that is illegal, not making files available for download.

Say I had a file server with all my private files on sitting on the internet unprotected. Although I would be incredibly stupid for doing it, surely if someone downloaded my files without my permission, they would be breaking the law, not me.

no it's uploading/filesharing thats illegal. how would itunes, HMV etc bypass the law??

Mmmm that's a bit over simplistic Phanny. What it's reacting to is the scale I believe and the fact that most people think it's OK. I think there needs to be an attitude change on both sides to be honest.


Well if iTunes can sell tracks at 60p a pop and not make a huge loss (indeed make quite a large profit), then I really don't think it beyond the wit of a small businessman or woman to do the same for the musical ouput of a single musical 'entity' at a much lower cost per unit, considering there will be at least two fewer middlemen skimming off profits.

Charging by the track is just plain daft though, it needs to be either unmetered (pay fee for access) or charged by the kilobyte. I'm not paying the same amount for an 8 second cassetteboy track as I am for 26 minutes of the Grateful Dead (on iTunes that is about 3p/min incidentally - 2p a minute doesn't seem so far fetched). And if lossless compression is used you won't be charged for downloading silence either. (Sorry Mr Cage). This is why I stopped using eMusic, the inequity.

As we know, the Dead have made lots of money, pots of money, even though they are always encouraging bootlegging, endorsing it and even distributing them (the bootlegs) all long before the internet became John Perry Barlow's main interest.

So it's the imaginative artists who will find ways of reaching their audience in mutually beneficial ways. The others will just have to sit and listen to their execs tell them how much they have 'lost' in illegal downloads whilst they wonder what went wrong... the djinn is out of the bottle.

Artists, producers, publishers and record companies need to accept that and make capital from it, instead of trying to stuff the djinn back in by burdening people with mutually exclusive DRM systems and players that will always be circumvented. Lets face it, if you can listen to it, you can copy it - however many layers of DRM and copy protection you put in.

I think the future is bands syndicating their music directly to services like iTunes or eMusic. The dinosaur record labels are just trying to work out how to stop their whole business model collapsing (an exercise in futility).

The whole of the intellectual property sphere that needs to get moving just to keep up. What next? Open source music?

As for viruses and bittorrent: the risk you face is the same as any file you download. With competent security measures in place on your own computer, the dangers are the same as if you were viewing images in your browser or downloading a copy of anything, legitimate or not. Bit torrent in itself is no more vulnerable to viruses than anything else. As for modifying a bona fide file and trying to use it to seed a torrent, I still don't know how you get round the one way hash.... but you clearly do?

The danger is greatest if you stick a bona fide Sony Audio CD in your computer though, QED.

Look at it another way... free music downloads make your music accessible to a greater pool of people. People who like it but don't buy a hardcopy are offset against those that wouldn't have heard it unless it was a free download, like it and do buy a hardcopy. Swings and roundabouts.