[Closed] Wrist slapping by ISP

He's talking about getting a warning.

Remember this? I mean the music industry was killed stone dead by cassettes. 🙄

[img] [/img]

Didn't Sony have a meltdown a few years ago when George Michael was going to start to publish his music on the internet for free as he was sick of the corrupt bastards who were running the business?

Torrent and Kodi for me.

Just STW being STW. Fake Oakley threads get pulled, but talk about ripping off content and you're fine.

Both involve intellectual property infringement. One is a criminal offence and one is a civil dispute.

gobuchul - Member
Remember this? I mean the music industry was killed stone dead by cassettes.

IIRC, there was a levy on the price of blank cassettes to offset the losses incurred through piracy. I am not aware of a similar levy on our Internet connections but there may be one.

My main impression is that for music at least the changes in the economy caused by streaming and Internet piracy have screwed over the musicians far more than the corporations.

I have some sympathy for musicians such as David Lowery and their anger that the general public is happy to fork over significant amounts of money to large corporations for computers, iPhones and broadband, but will go to substantial lengths to avoid paying for music, where at least some of that outlay would have eventually filtered down to the people who make it.

gobuchul

Remember this? I mean the music industry was killed stone dead by cassettes.

Yes. And in the late seventies and early eighties movie studios tried to ban betamax and vhs - the matter was brought before congress. The MPAA's argument was that VHS/Betamax would kill the film industry because people would tape films off the tv - they would just wait for films to be broadcast as opposed to going to the cinema. They wanted the ability to home record banned, furthermore they wanted the fast forward system disabled so that people couldn't skip trailers at the start of video tapes. Amazingly, it didn't kill the film industry.

I think it's slightly obtuse to insist "it's theft" and try to shut down the debate. There are shades of grey here.

The film and tv industry can't have it all their own way. They need to adapt or die. I went to see Logan at the cinema recently and the total spend for my friend and I (two tickets, snacks and parking) was £35. Before the film started there was roughly 25 minutes of adverts and trailers. In addition to that were numerous pieces of product placement throughout the film. I didn't pay to watch adverts, and I was in no way compensated for my time which was wasted by adverts or the distracting effect of the product placement.

And despite having paid to see it, if I stream Logan I will now instantly become a "thief". Furthermore if I buy the blueray of Logan and make a copy for myself that is also copyright infringement (or theft if you cannot understand nuance).

Even if a format which completely supersedes Blueray emerges and Sony cease to make devices that I can play my Blueray on I am still breaking the law by duplicating or transferring it in any way, regardless of how much money I have already paid to watch "Logan".

DezB - Member
Still wondering what is tough and what I have to suck up.

Are you still wondering ? Really ?

Wow, simple things eh.

Yay, a copyright thread.
Even more exciting than a TV licence thread :/

Random thought,

What was the "legitimate" point of blank cassettes? The uses that don't infringe copyright must have been a minority usage, maybe people recording their own band or something. You weren't even allowed to, say, tape your records so that you could play them when out and about, IIRC.

They were for copying spectrum and c64 games. Oh, wait a minute!

Yay, a copyright thread.
Even more exciting than a TV licence thread :/

Singletrack - Living life on the edge!

And I've spoken about this before, but I'm with jimjam on this.

Some people are serial pirates and will do anything to avoid paying for stuff. That really doesn't sit well with me morally, if something is worth paying for then you should be paying for it.

I'll still spend as much money as I can justify on films, TV subscriptions and the like. Some titles I've bought more than once, even (eg, I think I have Escape From New York on four different formats). I'd have little moral objection to downloading something I already own.

The whole "home taping is theft" business hinges on the notion that every download is a lost sale, which is patent nonsense. I once downloaded an episode of Strictly or something similar after my OH forgot to record it one night (and I lost an entire evening trying to get iPlayer to send it to the TV in something other than cataract-o-vision before giving up and torrenting it in about ten minutes). Does that mean they've lost a sale because I've not run out and bought the box set? Of course not, it means she just wouldn't have watched it.

IIRC Compact Cassette was developed as a dictation medium, but was then jimmied to better quality.

ISP ban? What you need is a Sneakernet.

He's talking about getting a warning.

And if he doesn't stop *other people* somehow d/l'ing from his MAC/IP?

My point is just that, for example 2TB of movies, could be copied from HD to HD in a short period of time without any ISP traffic. Win 10, however, probably reports them 😛

What was the "legitimate" point of blank cassettes?

Linux distros. It's always Linux distros.

Remember this? I mean the music industry was killed stone dead by cassettes.

Not sure what your point is, but the music industry has been very seriously damaged by the sense of entitlement generated by widespread illegal downloading.

It's not the actual activity but the smugness that often accompanies it that grates with me.

It's not the actual activity but the smugness that often accompanies it that grates with me.

Not usually one for a +1 comment, but +1.

According to UK Music, which publishes a yearly economic study, Music contributed £4.1bn to the UK economy in 2015, growth since 2012 was 17% in comparison to the UK overall at 10%. So that part of the industry is growing, not sure about film but wouldn't be surprised if this was mirrored.Agreed that the streaming model in music does dick the artists more. That is not the fault of the consumer.

chakaping

Not sure what your point is, but the music industry has been very seriously damaged by the sense of entitlement generated by widespread illegal downloading.

Does the "music industry" have some inherent right to thrive despite changing habits in technology? Has there always been an industry creating an elite handful of private jet flying, coke snorting, Rolls Royce crashing, Peado Wonderland building super stars....or is it just an anomaly that sprang up relatively recently due to one invention, and is having to adapt or contract because of another?

Surely it's a better time to be an artist now? All you need is a Facebook page or a Youtube channel and you can promote yourself without having to sign away your rights or cede creative control to a giant faceless corporation who only want to make formulaic radio friendly shite?

There seems to be far more ways now for artists to take control of every aspect of their music than they did at the height of "music industry" control. I'm sure the gas lamp industry was negatively effected by the electric light bulb but things change.

The vast majority of musicians are getting paid less Jimjam.

I don't know how as an artist or small label you'd get onto streaming clients. If you could get your music on, returns are pretty poor. Fewer people are buying physical media and it's these places in the past where you might've had a shot at making money from your music. So while promotion might be easier, earning money from your audience might be harder. I'd imagine that big artists do quite well out of spotify and the like.

The vast majority of musicians are getting paid less Jimjam.

I have a hypothesis that their revenue streams have altered slightly- the majority of income for most artists will come from performances. Record companies may be hurting, yes, artists less so. Tthere's the old argument that giving away the music is more than compensated in ticket sales.

chakaping - Member
Remember this? I mean the music industry was killed stone dead by cassettes.
Not sure what your point is, but the music industry has been very seriously damaged by the sense of entitlement generated by widespread illegal downloading.

Any chance you can scan the latest STW mag for me and email over the PDF?

Just skim through it in WHSmiths

This Copyright theft came up a few times last week.
Leicester in the Champions League, watched it here via a Kodi box. Viewing figures were minimal, why dont they make it free to air, and have 10x the number of viewers, and consequent increase in advert fees?
The local film rental shop owner (no, I didnt know they still existed either) comes into our pub on a Friday. He was jubilant as 'Streamers will now get up to 10 years inside when caught"
OK, he'd read some industry press release saying it was now illegal. Yet he couldnt see it was not going to stop anyone, film pirating has been going on for 30+ years, it is just a little bit easier now.
How about, make the cinema easier to get to, to pay for, make it a better experience - as above, you go to see a film, not 5 trailers and loads of ads.I dont want to sit next to people drinking a bucket of coke through a straw. I dont want to pay £3 for a £1 ice cream etc. I dont find typical cinemas enticing. They are stuck in a timewarp. Why not make the rooms nicer, maybe 2 seats in a cubicle. Stop and start when you want. Go at any time of day, not dead on 7.30 or 10pm. I could go on. They've missed the boat, just like the music industry did in the 90's.
If they had started up their own online download sites, Apple etc wouldnt be anywhere near as big in this sector now, yet they tried to block downloads until it was just too late, and they couldnt make any money, so they now have to pay Apple a large percentage of anything they receive.
It will happen to films too, youngsters at work watch blockbuster films on their phones the day after they are released.
Rather than get nothing, the Film makers should offer a film on release for a small fee, encrypt it somehow, so it expires in 4 days, and they may make a lot more money.

Its not theft for the simple reason the holder of the rights still has the property.

CountZero

What has been far more damaging to music and the whole industry that supports it is streaming.

The Delgados, who set up Chemikal Underground Records, they were saying just how difficult it is now to run a small indy label,

People now see music as just a commodity, just something to have to make background silence go away, not something to be passionate about, and as a result aren't prepared to pay more than a tiny amount for what is basically renting music.
This is clearly unsustainable, those who create and produce music and support the structure behind it need to be paid what it's truly worth, which isn't happening in the grass-roots area of music.

I don't subscribe to any streaming services but I regularly buy new music through bandcamp. As soon as I find something I like I buy it. Usually obscure alternative metal bands I hear about through Facebook or Youtube. It's usually $5-$10 for an ep or album and apparently Bandcamp takes 15% of that. I imagine that's still a lot more going to the artists than they would get from a CD sale at $10.00.

So bands don't need to sign to record labels, and they don't need to submit to streaming services, and they can self promote - there are alternatives to the old ways.

Are you still wondering ? Really ?

Wow, simple things eh

Bikebouy wins with his witty response to a genuine question. I'm crushed.

those who create and produce music and support the structure behind it need to be paid what it's truly worth, which isn't happening in the grass-roots area of music.

Thread wasn't about music, which I think is a different debate altogether, but if the artists are good enough (original and worth listening to), they will make money. I remember when Burial's 1st album came out and I gave a mate a copy and he loved it, I said he should buy it then. He didn't - I emailed Burial and said don't you think my mate should buy your album (in a bid to guilt-trip him into it). Burial replied saying it doesn't matter as long as my music is getting heard. Now I'm sure young Will Bevan is making a decent living.

Thanks.

What has been far more damaging to music and the whole industry that supports it is streaming.

Yes, I was thinking of Spotify and the other streaming services that have kind of taken over from rampant piracy - but was too lazy to fully explain my point.

I have a hypothesis that their revenue streams have altered slightly- the majority of income for most artists will come from performances. Record companies may be hurting, yes, artists less so. Tthere's the old argument that giving away the music is more than compensated in ticket sales.

I don't have time to find a source now, but I've read this theory convincingly refuted for all but very successful acts.

Basically it's harder to make a living even as a reasonably successful band. You can only gig so often, overheads are high, a band might have four or five members and young people don't have as much money to go out.

Very few bands can make enough money from music to earn a living. Most have other jobs, and do music as a part time passion.
Bands I see regularly at a local venue have Radio 6 air play, have recorded 2 or more CD's, touring round the Country 2 or 3 times a year, yet do not make minimum wage levels.
One last year told us she had done her tax return that day, and was quite pleased as she didnt have to pay any tax - if there was a bill, she couldnt afford to pay it. This was after giving an excellent performance in front of 200 people, and being on a R6 session the previous week. She was thrilled that people were buying her CD, it meant she had made a small profit on the night.

I subscribe to Spotify and since doing that have pretty much stopped pirating music (no need, except for a few artists not on Spotify).

I'd happily do the same for TV/movies if only there was a Spotify equivalent, but right now you'd have to subside to Sky, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Apple etc etc. It's still way too fragmented.

It's the measure of someone who's happy to watch stuff and not want to contribute financially.

I know someone who does it, she's well-off and has no concept of the value of things. I do wonder about borrowing some of her work related stuff without asking...

Anyway there are loads of options these days. My money goes into Netflix as they are producing stuff that is worth paying for. Ahead of the cinema in some ways and certainly ahead of what terrestrial TV puts out.

Suicide Squad - well there's no accounting for taste! 😉

Why does nobody ever mention usenet in these threads? If you're one of the ones that wants to get stuff, undetected, surely usenet is your answer...

If I walked into Ye Olde Record Shoppe, picked up a CD and walked out without paying, was caught by the store detective, went up before the beak and pleaded guilty, how much jail time or fine would I be looking at as a first time offender?

If I carelessly & illegally download the same CD, the copyright holder found out, my ISP grassed me up and I pleaded guilty, how much jail time or fine would I be looking at as a first time offender?

I suspect the potential financial implications of the latter is much worse than the former, even taking potential jail time into account...

Also, whilst we're giving the likes of Google & Spotify a hard time, does anyone have any cost comparisons with radio? How much does an artist receive for airplay on, say, Radio 1 or 6 Music or Radio Outer Hebrides...

I had a warning letter from my ISP here in Oz a while back - I subscribed to BTguard and it didn't happen again. Mebbe a coincidence.

However, what made me stop pirating completely is a conversation with my mate (who is a senior IT type). He explained how third-party US law firms are collecting vast quantities of IP addresses from torrent swarms - then approaching the relevant content owners, with a view to opening lawsuits for a share of the damages.

All it needs is a change in legal precedent to open the flood-gates for lawyers to pursue anyone who has ever downloaded somebody else's IP. If you've ever done it, your IP address is sitting in a lawyers database somewhere.

The Dallas Buyers Club saga in Australia (see below) got uncomfortably close to establishing that precident..... in the end it seemed to fail on something that could be easily avoided in the next go-around.

Also - I now have an 8 month-old - I barely have time to scratch my balls, let alone watch a film (and would rather scratch my balls than watch Suicide Squad).

Makers of Dallas Buyers Club have attempted to aggressively enforce their copyrights by serving discovery orders on Australian internet service providers (ISPs). iiNet, one of the ISPs served with a discovery application, stated it has "serious concerns" that the film's makers will look to intimidate subscribers. Steve Dalby, iiNet's chief regulatory officer, said: "We are concerned that our customers will be unfairly targeted to settle claims out of court using a practice called 'speculative invoicing'".[106] Information of up to 4,700 subscribers were being sought for allegedly downloading the film before its box office release.[107]

In April 2015, an Australian federal judge, Justice Nye Perram ruled that ISPs must hand over contact information related to the IP addresses associated with sharing the movie.[108][109]

In August 2015 the Australian Federal Court refused the application for film makers of Dallas Buyers Club to force ISPs to hand over the details of their customers. The courts found that the contents of the letter, proposed by the film makers to contact downloaders with, were more demanding than deemed appropriate. The letter was found to ask for such details as salary and other films that were downloaded, as well as punitive damages, which are illegal to seek under Australian law.[110]

In December 2015, Justice Perram dismissed the Dallas Buyers Club LLC case against iiNet entirely unless an appeal were filed by February 11, 2016. The judge remarked upon DBC's attempts to claim costs for a worldwide non-exclusive distribution agreement, concluding that "DBC’s contention was wholly unrealistic; indeed, I went so far as to describe it as ‘surreal’. Perram also required posting a $600,000 bond to the court should the suit proceed."[111]

£15 a minute for Radio 1 from PRS, according to google

How are they going to charge people with a crime that wasn't illegal at the time of offence?

vinnyeh - Member
The vast majority of musicians are getting paid less Jimjam.
I have a hypothesis that their revenue streams have altered slightly- the majority of income for most artists will come from performances. Record companies may be hurting, yes, artists less so. Tthere's the old argument that giving away the music is more than compensated in ticket sales.

I semi frequently see musicians explaining how this really isn't the case. In fact I saw this one yesterday, from an American Musician, Jim White:

So I'm about to do this Irish tour, right? And I'm hoping some folks will come to the shows. And some people not in Ireland will ask why I don't tour more in their area, particularly when I grouse a lot here on Facebook about the plummeting value of my work in the marketplace due to illegal downloading and microscopic fragments of royalty payments via Spotify and Pandora and such. Quite often people---smart people---suggest artists like me should just go out on the road and tour more and make loads of money that way.

Well, guess what? The music business is a business just like any other business, and when one revenue stream dries up, the nearest possible stream is overrun by any and all participants in that business paradigm. So when I go out on the road, particularly here in the US, I am greeted with wall to wall amazing artists who, like me, often play to nearly empty rooms. From current indie darlings to the countless darlings from various alternative music epochs, like Dinosaur Jr., Garbage, Sun Volt, Hayden, Blitzentrapper, Boston etc. etc, everyone is out there on the road touring, trying to make a living, but most are NOT making pile of money on the road.

And because the road is crawling with quality acts, it's important to put together a good show--right? You can't half ass it. Last time I toured in the US I took out a modest three piece band and we toured the northeast (typically a strong market for me) and after 3 weeks, despite being incredibly frugal, I was four thousand dollars in the hole. So I was losing a thousand dollars a week to have the privilege of driving 300 miles a day, staying in dive motels with bed bugs and crack heads in the next room, to play a show to a handful of lovely, devoted fans. After one such show I realized I could have just sent each person in attendance $100 and saved myself the trouble.

Which brings me to this tour poster (which someone sent me last year and which I may have posted previously) and looking at the line up for just this short span of time listed there you find amazing band after band playing this venue. And it's that way all over.

Last time I played in New York Lucinda Williams and Steve Earle were also playing shows that same night. Plus a bunch of lesser luminaries. So who's gonna come see me? 35 people did, most of whom were old friends who I cajoled into coming.

And it's not just musicians. I spoke to a promoter last year in Virginia who guaranteed Al Stewart, who was a huge star in the 70's with his hit record Year of the Cat, a cool four grand to play his large venue there. The promoter only needed 150 people to show up to cover his out of pocket. When show time came his audience numbered not in the hundreds, not even in the tens. There were four people there when Al Stewart hit the stage.

So please friends of music, understand, we aren't making up this story of vanishing livelihoods, times are real hard for musicians, and until some kind of legislation is put in place that protects the intellectual property of musicians, like the royalty system that was developed pre internet, then we are truly living up to the title of "starving artist".

So wish me luck in Ireland. I've got a good feeling about this particular junket, thanks in great part to solid advance work by the promoter, who is making virtually nothing on the deal and basically doing this as a labor of love. Thanks Willie Meighan!

[i]Suicide Squad - well there's no accounting for taste![/i]

How do you know?

How are they going to charge people with a crime that wasn't illegal at the time of offence?

Civil offence innit. Think it has always been?

cba...

ChrisL

I semi frequently see musicians explaining how this really isn't the case. In fact I saw this one yesterday, from an American Musician, Jim White:

No offence to Jim White (whoever he is) but does the fact that he is a musician mean he is entitled to a wage, or a fan base? Does this entitlement extend to artists in other mediums like painters, sculptors, poets, photographers etc?

Just out of curiousity I checked Jim's FB page and I see he has almost 5000 followers. For comparison's sake I looked at Mastodon, a band who are relatively obscure (in terms of mainstream appeal) and they have almost 1 million. So I went way down the list of bands I follow and at the bottom of the pile most still had 20-30,000 followers, we're talking really obscure instrumental metal...and they still had full touring schedules. A lot of these bands publish their own stuff, and share it for free through mediums like Bandcamp.

I used to pirate music because I refused to pay iTunes the same price as hard copy for just the limited rights to play it. you didn't own the download and iTunes can remove it from your system if they want.

When spotify came along I joined and I pay - its the only subscription I have to anything - why because its a reasonable cost ( indeed I'd pay more) and it allows the artist to at least get something for their work

the internet and charging for stuff on it is still very much in its early days and I believe things will become more sustainable in the medium to long term. I believe the current situation is unsustainable longterm for all sorts of Media and will change but how is hard to predict.

I also remember when cassettes became popular and that was to be the death of music as we could copy albums. It didn't happen

Reading the Jim White article: [i]wall to wall amazing artists who, like me, often play to nearly empty rooms.[/i]

Must be down to the size of the US. (or these amazing artists are booking themselves into too large venus!) I see loads of new artists/bands and hardly ever are they in "empty rooms" (more's the pity!)
Jacques Greene on Monday night in Brighton - probably 40-50 people there, nice small venue, perfect sized crowd for the room. No merch on sale, so he must be doing ok.

So the conclusion we're coming to is that the industry is remaining fine by screwing the artists more?

So the conclusion we're coming to is that the industry is remaining fine by screwing the artists more?

No, but surely that's between the parties to figure out the correct deals.

However downloading without permission/payment hardly is the answer.