File Sharing under fire...

[Sgt Sunshine]

Been trawling and found this interesting snippet......

The Pirate Bay Court Decision Means File Sharing Is Under Fire | ITProPortal.com

Could be an interesting discussion topic....
Cheers
Sgt S

[GoggleboxUK]

Doubt they'll ever stamp out filesharing as the people who are the in the uppermost tier are so digitally switched on they can crack any coding.

I can't understand why there's such a big fuss being made personally. Prior to the global economic crash theatre attendance, DVD, videogame and software sales were extremely healthy and, even in the midst of a global recession, we see reports like this:

Disney Profit Jumps 40% On ESPN & Film: Every Hollywood Studio Boosted Earnings - Buzz - Entertainment - Media - Broadcasting and Entertainment - Walt Disney

I'd be much happier if the Government announced plans to spend this amount of time and money on schools or hospitals instead. There are areas of the world, including Europe, that have no copyright laws at all and yet film and media companies are still selling product there because those who can afford originals buy them, those who can't download or buy copies.

Stop pandering to greed and concentrate on what really matters would be my advice.

[jimw1]

Quote "The argument proposed by TPB that it is just a search engine and not responsible for the links listed on its website didn't impress the court"

A Pretty weak standpoint maybe they needed Better Lawyers..........
Its always been a Controversial Subject' I remember the Advent of Tape recorders in the 70's... most Hi fi systems were sold with tape recorders built in.....and the Record companies stated that it would affect the Music industry.
Back in those days I could lend you the latest Floyd album and you could record it on tape and listen at your Leisure.....Isnt that the same as File sharing albeit on a smaller scale

[GoggleboxUK]

Quote "The argument proposed by TPB that it is just a search engine and not responsible for the links listed on its website didn't impress the court"

A Pretty weak standpoint maybe they needed Better Lawyers..........
Its always been a Controversial Subject' I remember the Advent of Tape recorders in the 70's... most Hi fi systems were sold with tape recorders built in.....and the Record companies stated that it would affect the Music industry.
Back in those days I could lend you the latest Floyd album and you could record it on tape and listen at your Leisure.....Isnt that the same as File sharing albeit on a smaller scale

I doubt it's much bigger than home taping was back in the 70s and 80s Jim but you make a valid point.

If companies, such as Sony for example, have such a problem with people copying and sharing their content then why do they manufacture the equipment that facilitates it?



It still loks healthy to me. There's a bigger section for CDs in my local supermarket than there is for bread.

[jimw1]

If companies, such as Sony for example, have such a problem with people copying and sharing their content then why do they manufacture the equipment that facilitates it?

The Words Have Cake and Eat spring to mind.......

[sanndevil]

Agreed - the large corporations are always in a hurry to get new technology to marketplace in the hope that us mugs will buy the same products over and over again but with the new formats of a higher fidelity. They have systematically ripped us off for years - and so it's tough that some consumers are getting even by ripping stuff off. I have zero sympathy for the corporations.

What they should also be aware of is those who do the ripping tend to be those who also spend considerably more money on technology than those that don't. So if the corporations don't get their money one way, they usually get it another way.

[will.15]

What's the big deal? it's been under fire a long time and they lost an appeal. This wasn't a new ground breaking decision. And their conviction was based on precedent and existing law.

[DB7]

Doubt they'll ever stamp out filesharing as the people who are the in the uppermost tier are so digitally switched on they can crack any coding.

I think 'three strikes' is introduced next year, so whilst tpb may be online you may not be. As became obvious with the recent leak, Sky are already logging and shopping their users.

[Wolfgang]

Filesharing is not particularly wise if you are downloading copyright material; you reveal your IP number so you are asking for trouble. There are safer ways to download like from file hosting sites such as Rapidshare and Megaupload and newsgroups.

[GoggleboxUK]

Filesharing is not particularly wise if you are downloading copyright material; you reveal your IP number so you are asking for trouble. There are safer ways to download like from file hosting sites such as Rapidshare and Megaupload and newsgroups.

A classic example of how there will always be a way. Do we really want the Government to spend our money on banks of new technology to trap and convict filesharers who will already have moved on to using a system which makes that costly equipment redundant before they have had time to understand the software?

Not to mention the thousands of new public sector workers it will have to pay wages to.

A despicable invasion of privacy coupled with another unecessary financial strain on our country's already limitedresources.

[Steve Crook]

Back in those days I could lend you the latest Floyd album and you could record it on tape and listen at your Leisure.....Isnt that the same as File sharing albeit on a smaller scale

On a hugely smaller scale. Filesharing and bootlegging aren't just ways to get material to fans, they both also prevent any payment from getting back to the artists who created the work.

If it is allowed to go on in an unrestricted way then musicians and film-makers just won't bother to create anything. Why should they if they never make anything from their work?

Steve

[GoggleboxUK]

On a hugely smaller scale. Filesharing and bootlegging aren't just ways to get material to fans, they both also prevent any payment from getting back to the artists who created the work.

If it is allowed to go on in an unrestricted way then musicians and film-makers just won't bother to create anything. Why should they if they never make anything from their work?

Steve

Do you think Picasso, Van Gogh and Constable were in it for the money too?

Your post is a sad reflection of today's world.

[will.15]

Picasso made a boatload of money,

Painters don't have to worry about the internet.

[GoggleboxUK]

But they did it for the love of the art rather than for the cash. That's why all the best art was created before money got involved.

Even if the movie and music industry collapsed there'd still be film makers and musicians out there doing what they love and being creative. The internet plays host to a myriad of entertainment which was made with something other than financial gain in mind.

What the internet takes away, it gives back. The future will look very different and the corportations know this. Internet TV is like the first evolution and it's being led by hopeful manufacturers desparate to cling to their golden egg-laying goose.

[Steve Crook]

Do you think Picasso, Van Gogh and Constable were in it for the money too?

Your post is a sad reflection of today's world.

Picasso, Van Gogh and Constable all made a decent living from their art. Even if they didn't make shed loads of cash themselves, they had sponsors who paid them enough to live on.

But this is a spurious argument anyway. There's no comparison between painters and other artists like musicians and film-makers in this regard. Paintings have always been reproduced in the form of prints which have been sold off cheaply to very little benefit to the artists. It's only their original works that make the big money.

Musicians and film-makers have always relied on the income from their work much more than painters. You might not like it, you might think it a sad reflection of the modern world (even though it's been that way since the 1900s) but that's definitely the way that it is.

Musicians and film-makers might want to create their art without the big sponsorship. But would they be able to? It takes a lot of money to make a decent film or to make an album. If you deny them any income for their work you'll just finish up with the low grade amateur work that fills up much of YouTube.

Nowadays anyone can make a film or a piece of music, but that doesn't mean that they all should make one

Steve

[jimw1]

Do you think Picasso, Van Gogh and Constable were in it for the money too?

Your post is a sad reflection of today's world.

Absolutely Gogglebox :

Musicians will create music regardless of what Money they can make.......

I started playing drums in the Mid 70's because I wanted to be in a band...My Nephew is learning Guitar at the moment it comes natural to him and he's Developing really quickly.....he's doing it because he loves playing and wants to be in a band..theres thousands of young kids doing the same thing. Britain's got talent and its not on that Crappy TV Show (Geared to making MONEY) its in Garages and Bedrooms all over the country.
Thats why there will always be Good bands around who will Create Good Music and Not Just to make Money.....The root of all genuine Music comes a love of being Creative

To Quote Todd Rundgren

""I think it's not great in the way the industry has reacted to (digital music distribution) in the sense that I don't think they understand it, they don't understand the dynamic behind it, and so they think it's possible to make people continue to think in this sort of old-fashioned way that sees music as a commodity, as an item that costs 99 cents like a hamburger or something like that, whereas music was always something sort of ephemeral"

Doesn't somebody have to get paid for making the music?

"Yes, but like when I first realized that music was important to me, you don't start calculating in your head exactly how much your career as a musician is going to return to you," Rundgren said. "The first thing that you feel is you want to create this joy, this communication or something. Before you could ever consider getting paid for it, you had to perform in front of people who had a response: 'Mmm, that was nice, I liked that.'"

[Steve Crook]

Absolutely Gogglebox :

Musicians will create music regardless of what Money they can make.......

I started playing drums in the Mid 70's because I wanted to be in a band...My Nephew is learning Guitar at the moment it comes natural to him and he's Developing really quickly.....he's doing it because he loves playing and wants to be in a band..theres thousands of young kids doing the same thing. Britain's got talent and its not on that Crappy TV Show (Geared to making MONEY) its in Garages and Bedrooms all over the country.
Thats why there will always be Good bands around who will Create Good Music and Not Just to make Money.....The root of all genuine Music comes a love of being Creative

To Quote Todd Rundgren

""I think it's not great in the way the industry has reacted to (digital music distribution) in the sense that I don't think they understand it, they don't understand the dynamic behind it, and so they think it's possible to make people continue to think in this sort of old-fashioned way that sees music as a commodity, as an item that costs 99 cents like a hamburger or something like that, whereas music was always something sort of ephemeral"

Doesn't somebody have to get paid for making the music?

"Yes, but like when I first realized that music was important to me, you don't start calculating in your head exactly how much your career as a musician is going to return to you," Rundgren said. "The first thing that you feel is you want to create this joy, this communication or something. Before you could ever consider getting paid for it, you had to perform in front of people who had a response: 'Mmm, that was nice, I liked that.'"

That's all very true, and is the difference between amateurs (of which there will always be many) and professionals.
Would you have heard of Todd Rundgren if he hadn't turned professional?
Did he pay for the manufacture and distribution of his first albums out of his own pocket?

Steve

[GoggleboxUK]

But this is a spurious argument anyway. There's no comparison between painters and other artists like musicians and film-makers in this regard. Paintings have always been reproduced in the form of prints which have been sold off cheaply to very little benefit to the artists. It's only their original works that make the big money.

That is exactly my point. Why spend taxpayers money chasing people who aren't making a difference?

Your arguments conflict. How can you equate this paragraph with your previous comments regarding the collapase of the music and film industry?

Would you have heard of Todd Rundgren if he hadn't turned professional?
Did he pay for the manufacture and distribution of his first albums out of his own pocket?

Steve

Dave Grohl of Foo Fighters did. He also played every instrument and sang on his first album.

And there are no professionals without amateurs. Even Muhammad Ali was once an amatuer. The money element is always introduced by parasitic agents or companies whose only talents are fleecing the public.

What goes round comes around, file sharing is parasites preying on parasites. Spending taxpayers money chasing them is just wasteful.

[will.15]

I agree the government shouldn't be going after these people. Let the copyright holders do it. The music industry as we know it is doomed anyway and the Internet has already affected the business model with more emphasis on live concerts. They will still make movies, but maybe the twenty plus million salary and other extravagances that bloat a budget will disappear.

[Wolfgang]

Maybe illegal downloaders should club together and start making election campaign contributions.