Ivor Hardy

I know, it's all BS, and knowing a lot of people who work in the music industry it's depressing how little they even know or care about music. But in the long run I think it's all good as the smaller independent labels who are run by people who care will hopefully benefit as they usually have fans who are willing to pay.

comment by JeremyKyleNation (U1041)

I think the 'downloaders pay more than other users thing' applies to those who download first and then buy what they download. It doesn't apply to people who buy £40 worth of music and then think it's ok to download another £100 worth.

I have fallen in love with Pledge music. I have discovered wonderfully talented musicians by trolling that site and then checking out their Youtube channels.

Crowd funding is awesome, and it creates create work as evidenced by the crowd funded documentary that won an Oscar.

I don't see why with the online market that you need to download to try before you buy though. You can play pretty much every track on Soundcloud, YouTube or Spotify or even on the seller's site, even if it is a clip.

The download try before you try doesn't wash with me when you can stream it to test first.

The record labels and corporate music bods need to be able to earn the dough to sustain their expensive images and drug habits. Simple!

JKN, while that works with music, it isn't always as simple with a film. Especially as trailers are specifically designed to only show you the best bits. Generally it is much easier to stream a film, and then if it is any good, buy it afterwards to watch in better quality, etc.

JeremyKyleNation

I think you're using the word 'steal' all wrong. The way music and movies can be accessed these days has meant people have different ways in which they want to view or listen to things. As has been stated here before in many tests carried out those who 'illegally' download will more often spend more on products.

I will often download music from blogs, the majority of these downloads are for music that has been ripped from vinyl because they are not available digitally or out of print all together. I then make a point of purchasing the music on vinyl when I can. Over the past 5 years of doing this I have easily spend more money on music.

Agreed on the film thing. The amount of times I've gone back to Blockbusters or walked out of the cinema feeling like my pants have been pulled down is ridiculous! These chumps who create those funny or intriguing trailers are some of the most creative people about! They can actually polish turrds!

I agree that Soundcloud, YouTube or Spotify are great services and are my first port of call for checking out a new band/artist. Then there is Last FM and Grooveshark as well as a myriad of other streaming services. For music, there isn't really an excuse for illegal downloading.

Movies and TV shows, however, are a different story. Legal online services for those are pretty pathetic so there really is not other alternative but to download to try before you buy.

Exactly the reason some people choose to stream first. I see your point with music though, it is so easy to get hold of practically any song you want these days.

Watching tv shows online is just so much easier. While I was at uni, I had a bit of an obsession with House and used to watch it online all the time. Now I actually have a job, etc, I've been out and bought a 6 series box set that was reduced from £110, to £55. If it hadn't been reduced, there was no way in hell I was buying it. How can you justify selling a set of DVDs for £110, when it isn't exactly expensive to produce the DVDs, and most of the show's costs will have already been covered years ago!

Sorry MU1982 but that's not the way it is. The artist has most likely put it on vinyl to limit the audience, build anticipation or just to try and prevent piracy. So you are undoing that. Most likely as someone pointed out, you later on buy the vinyl from ebay or whatever and none of those proceeds go back to the artist.

I notice now as well that it seems with the influx of music around now, non commercial stuff doesn't even seem to be bothered to be put through clearing these days to clear original samples etc. Thus potentially denying original artists royalties they might be due. Most likely because the profit made by artists has been massively driven down due to the digital era.

All the oldies have left this article because it's making their heads explode.

I've just registered with dropbox. I uploaded the photos on my phone but how can I upload the photos on my mini sd card

*upload the ones from the mini sd to dropbox.

Do it on your PC Rob. Probably easier. Although depending on your phone, you should be able to browse in the Dropbox app to other locations such as your card.

JeremyKyleNation

I can't be bothered to get in another stupid argument with you again today.

Read what I have been saying, I buy primarily old music on vinyl. The only way to get this music is to buy them in record shops or online on sites like Discogs. Their limitation has nothing what so ever to do with piracy. Most of these records where released on major labels back when major labels released good music and cared, they have zero interest in re releasing an old record that will make them minimal profit if any. New music I buy new and I am all for helping out independent labels.

If I want an old record with acceptable sound quality the ONLY way I can get it is through second hand sources, either rips on blogs or the physical record.

Getting an ad for napster on here.

Me too

Decent article W&R

I'm not looking for an argument. What sort of music is it that you buy on vinyl?

A lot of old house/garage music is being cleaned up, re-mastered and re-released digitally. I rip a lot of my own vinyl for playing out which gives you the advantage as a DJ but I also buy it if it is re-released as the quality is usually far superior to my rips.

Problem is now, everyone wants to be a DJ and they don't understand what older DJs had to do to make themselves stand out. There is also a lot of legally free music available on Soundcloud and the likes but people these days choose to look at things like the Beatport top 100 then find a blog site where they can illegally download it and then clone whoever's hot at the moment's sound! So they contribute nothing to the scene and that drives me mad! Anyway i digress but the ripping off of music whichever way people want to look at it will eventually have an adverse effect either through saturation or musicians being force to do actual jobs to pay their living! We may be gaining from it now but ultimately it will be a loss.

In a way it's like those saying I'm not going to pay my debts because i can just go bankrupt and start fresh and get away with all of the stuff I "bought" that I could never afford in the first place. It's that thinking that put the world in this mess in the first place. And the greed of the bankers and credit firms who encouraged them to spend and corporates who insisted we need these products! :D

JeremyKyleNation

I'm sure you're not looking for an argument although we clearly disagree on most things.

I buy a lot of stuff, primarily Krautt, Punk, Disco, House, Japanese, Brazilian, Prog, Fusion, Italo, Library.

I would say the majority of it is only really available on vinyl in it's original release, I don't like MP3s and ideally don't like to buy re-issues (although I bought a great Nu Groove re-issue the other day) so that only really leaves me with the vinyl or rips of the vinyl online.

For me I will often download the rip and keep on my computer, this is purely for reference. I will then try my best to buy the music on vinyl when I can. I'm not stealing and feel the way I listen to the MP3s is very similar to how I listen to music on YouTube except I have more control and a wider range.

I disagree with your view about how musicians will suffer, if anything the internet has brought a more level playing field and the people who care and make interesting stuff independently are being appreciated and people are happy to pay for their products (much like what Louis CK has done with his comedy).

comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)


posted 1 hour ago

"redmisty

Were you the chap who had a run in with a Blockbuster?"
_________________

Yes!


"The download try before you try doesn't wash with me when you can stream it to test first."
___________________

I completely agree with that which is why I no longer do it with music. The only time I would ever download a song for free is if have been unable to find it on any legal sites, iTunes etc.

There is no viable way to "try" a movie legally before you buy it though. And if you're buying on bluray then that is an expensive gamble!

I'm already a premium Lovefilm customer (postal -not that crap quality stream) but even that doen't enable me to try enough films at the rate that I want to buy them!

I do understand and appreciate what you're saying. However, your argument wouldn't stand up in court. You can't say I was going to buy it when it became available for purchase so in the meantime, I illegally downloaded the material to use until then.

Of course it wouldn't ever go to court but figuratively speaking of course. You can't walk out of a store with something and say you were going to come back and pay for it once you had tested it.

Redmisty already said I agree with the film thing. Sometimes you feel you could sue the film-makers for false advertising after seeing the trailer then going to see the film!

And clearly is something wrong when Cinemas are charging £12+ per film and are half empty in peak time! Is it the Cinema themselves being greedy (you'd think they'd make their money from the over-priced food and drink they churn out) or is it the film companies demanding Cinemas charge that?

JeremyKyleNation

Well that depends where you're gonna go to court though doesn't it as other countries have no problem with 'illegal' downloading.

How can a record be heard if it's only official release costs £500+ and the person who created the music has passed away and the label no longer exists?

Look at YouTube, there are billions of music tracks on there that would be considered illegally uploaded yet they will not get removed, why are they ok to have music accessed on their site when downloads are supposedly illegal. Neither own the rights, they are both modern forms of accessing music, and YouTube allow their music to be easily downloaded through secondary sites even though they could quite easily stop it.

Just because laws are in place doesn't mean they are all correct. As has been shown so often the music and film industries are incredibly slow at dealing with modern technology and rather than embracing it and using it to their advantage, it's far easier for them to just punish the little man.

JeremyKyleNation,

Fair questions. The following is a US article but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.wisegeek.org/why-are-movie-tickets-so-expensive.htm

It does my head in when Americans moan about the price of stuff when we often have to pay double the price that they are moaning about! The author of the attached is complaining about paying $8 for a cinema ticket FFS! I'd go to the cinema a lot more often if it was that cheap...