[Closed] Wrist slapping by ISP

How do you know?

I've seen it. Shoot me. Although the warnings signs were there.

And no you haven't already paid really. Do you pay twice for different visits to KFC?

I've seen it. Shoot me. Although the warnings signs were there.

Baffling. My taste is bad cos I've seen the same film as you? Hairy muff.
[i]And no you haven't already paid really[/i]
I have.
[i]Do you pay twice for different visits to KFC?[/i]
My taste isn't that bad.

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.

Except, unless they have access to an NSA or social media database - good luck IP matching customers from a decade ago. ISP's kicked off about having to retain that data for a year let alone that long.

Meanwhile in the US, They record, collect and sell your browsing data as a matter of principle now.....

As David Lightman famously said, there's ways around that.

ways around what?

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

I'm sure Ian Duncan Smith with fill you in about retrospective legislature, after he managed just that when in charge of the DWP.
Edit he did get bummed by the high courts though

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/iain-duncan-smiths-retroactive-workfare.html?m=1

Edit he did get bummed by the high courts though

Yup in other words. It didn't happen.

ways around what?

It was a reply to the comment directly above mine.

http://www.stereogum.com/1678835/steve-albini-thinks-the-internet-solved-the-problem-with-music/news/

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.

Good way of weeding out all those that're in it for the money. Then you're left with the people who create music because they want to, just like humans have done forever, before money even existed.

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

Source? Of course you own the download, you've paid for it just as you would a CD.

The argument is/was you have leased it not bought it.

I've never heard of iTunes removing music deliberately,

Nor me. I think the point was that they "could."

I've never heard of iTunes removing music deliberately,
Nor me. I think the point was that they "could."

It has happened for TV shows/movies I think - I've seen a few threads on macrumors about it. ([url= https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/24/apple-pulls-some-disney-and-pixar-titles-from-itunes-store-and-itunes-in-the-cloud/ ]link[/url])

People buy a film/tv show then stream rather than download it. Then in a year they want to watch it again, but can't because the studio/distributor/whatever has a new deal for back-catalog access. It;s even worse if you move between counties.

not an issue for me as I rent from iTunes these days

Good way of weeding out all those that're in it for the money. Then you're left with the people who create music because they want to, just like humans have done forever, before money even existed

This is pretty black and white. These people want/need to earn a living, that doesn't make them 'in it for the money'.

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

Cassettes are not Spotify/illegal streaming. Incomparable. Because, as you say, they didn't destroy the business model. Digital services do.

Please link to some data that shows the business model has been destroyed. As i previously posted, music industry growth in UK outpaced the average.

Whatever happened to that court case in the US with iTunes? some actor or someone wanted to leave thier iTunes collection to his son in a will, but apple said no, the rights to the downloads die with the original downlader.

Please link to some data that shows the business model has been destroyed.

OK, when you link to evidence of artists being taken on by labels, nurtured and supported through early releases and being paid sensible amounts of money in the process.

music industry growth

What are you counting as 'growth'?

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.

Maybe it isn't actually worth what they want it to be

Maybe it isn't actually worth what they want it to be

It was always the case that some artists' material didn't become massively profitable, and they would be dropped. But record companies could afford to keep investing in new talent, knowing that the revenue from successful artists would repay that investment. There was a big motivation to keep looking for, finding and nurturing talent, including putting them on a payroll until the big album came along.

Revenue streams now work differently, and no longer seem to support such investment in new talent.

This is pretty black and white. These people want/need to earn a living, that doesn't make them 'in it for the money'.

Coming from a family of professional musicians and witnessing how the music industry is mostly a collection of utterly narcissistic cockwombles - I'm not sure I care?

Times change, revenue streams dry up, like they did for the miners - the music industry needs to move on.

What are you counting as 'growth'?

Probably Adele selling eleventyzillion albums.

Acts don't make shit from record sales, relatively speaking, but they do make money for playing live, if they can actually play live to a reasonable standard, that is. why do you think the likes of AC/DC etc have all thier own road gear and lighting, busses
and crew etc?

Here you go DK:

[url= http://www.ukmusic.org/research/measuring-music-2016/ ]Measuring Music Report[/url]

"MUSIC’S £4.1 BILLION CONTRIBUTION TO THE UK ECONOMY IN 2015.

OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS THE UK MUSIC INDUSTRY HAS OUTPERFORMED THE UK ECONOMY IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH – WHILE THE UK GDP GREW BY 10% BETWEEN 2012 AND 2015, THE MUSIC INDUSTRY’S CONTRIBUTION TO GDP INCREASED BY 17% OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD."

So the industry seems to be doing well in recent years according to that report. The industry doing well is obviously not the same thing as the artist doing well.
If the artists are suffering then surely it's to do with the industry screwing the artists, not the consumer who is contributing more to music than before.

I'd welcome some earlier data on what industry revenues were like since the late 90's . Then you might see if internet based distribution had an effect.

I think the industry as a whole has used the shift in distribution model to generate more profit whilst screwing the artist. Obviously that's a generalisation, as small players like indie labels may not have and bigger artists may have done better.

Yeah, I suppose I was thinking more about the quality of output than the financial bottom line.

All modern music sounds rubbish to me and it doesn't feel like the industry has the talent, creativity and diversity (or energy) it once did. I don't have any dodgy stats to back that up. But I think this is the key point:

The industry doing well is obviously not the same thing as the artist doing well.

If the artists are suffering then surely it's to do with the industry screwing the artists, not the consumer who is contributing more to music than before.

I subscribe to Spotify, so I am part of the problem - but I wonder if we (as consumers and music fans) should really take more responsibility than that, cancel our subscriptions/download habits, and go out and actually buy the music we want to play on CD or vinyl. That way, we are supporting artists, not taking the piss and supporting a model we know doesn't repay them.

mattyfez - it was Bruce Willis wanting to leave it to his daughters

go out and actually buy the music we want to play on CD or vinyl

I was under the impression that bands don't make a lot from record sales; all the breakages, etc come from their cut?

I subscribe to Spotify. That's £15 a month going into the music production/distribution system that would have been previously as I was never a big buyer of CDs.

Dorset_Knob

I subscribe to Spotify, so I am part of the problem - but I wonder if we (as consumers and music fans) should really take more responsibility than that, cancel our subscriptions/download habits, and go out and actually buy the music we want to play on CD or vinyl. That way, we are supporting artists, not taking the piss and supporting a model we know doesn't repay them.

There are plenty of small independent artists and bands who you can contribute directly to, or buy directly (or near as damnit) from.

don't most people who do that kind of thing use a private VP

(Some) VPN providers will also send a similar message

@mike Spotify is OK for massive artists who have already made their money. For new nbands its a twrrible deal, they get absolute peanuts. Logic I heard was artists say they have to be on Spotify tontry and get airtime so some people will buy the album

rossendalelemming - Member
mattyfez - it was Bruce Willis wanting to leave it to his daughters

Ahh thanks. It was bugging me.

Sooo...

rene59 - Member
At the end of the day it's theft.
No it's not.

POSTED 2 DAYS AGO # REPORT-POST
bikebouy - Member
Then what is it then ?

POSTED 2 DAYS AGO # REPORT-POST
rene59 - Member
Copyright infringement.

And it appears the legal means of getting content in a digital format pay basically nothing to the actual artists anyway, so WGAF? I don't see "the industry" or even "Being able to make a living from recording music" as necessities for a functional society tbh. Nice for those that can do it, but I would've thought people with something other than art in their life might make better art.

Spotify is OK for massive artists who have already made their money. For new nbands its a twrrible deal, they get absolute peanuts. Logic I heard was artists say they have to be on Spotify tontry and get airtime so some people will buy the album

I listen to smaller artists on there that I'd probably never have even heard of otherwise, so they're getting cash from me that they otherwise wouldn't get.

All modern music sounds rubbish to me

There are loads of current bands making amazing music, but hardly any of them are making any money.

I subscribe to Spotify, so I am part of the problem - but I wonder if we (as consumers and music fans) should really take more responsibility than that, cancel our subscriptions/download habits, and go out and actually buy the music we want to play on CD or vinyl. That way, we are supporting artists, not taking the piss and supporting a model we know doesn't repay them.

As others have posted, Spotify is great for finding new stuff. I've bought a record deck again and am buying new vinyl again.

Had a quick google there and it seems that there are numerous independent artists on youtube with 50,000 followers (which can be worth up to $16,000 pa), patreon accounts paying them $1000 per video and albums on bandcamp and itunes. Merch sales and gigs

So it would appear that if you have talent, a guitar/piano/banjo/whatever a mic and a laptop you can make a half decent living, and potentially make a great living from music without having any involvement with the "music business" and the Simon Cowells of this world.

And it appears the legal means of getting content in a digital format pay basically nothing to the actual artists anyway, so WGAF? I don't see "the industry" or even "Being able to make a living from recording music" as necessities for a functional society tbh. Nice for those that can do it, but I would've thought people with something other than art in their life might make better art.

I have very little to do with music, but seeing as the the thread started off about film/TV I'm going to take offence at that anyway.

I ride bikes, have a family life, sail boats, buy the homeless lunch. Is that doing enough with my life to justify having a job?

I also have a small part to play in making the TV you watch. Now if I don't have that job the bike shop doesn't get a sale of some tyres, the mortgage doesn't get paid, the sailing club loses a member and the homeless guy who sits on the London Rd cycle path in Reading doesn't get his coffee on Wednesdays.

The world wouldn't stop turning if I didn't have this job, but I'd like to think it's a slightly better place as a result of me doing it.

I ride bikes, have a family life, sail boats, buy the homeless lunch.

[img] [/img]