I'm only slightly more of a book reader than I am a music listener. Which is, something in the region of, bugger all. 
Status report Page 1,981
In all seriousness though...
The trouble with this legislation is that it's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut that is placed 3 miles away. It gives so, so much power to unaccountable idiots. It gives the record industry power to accuse any individual of breaching copyright, AND have the law accept that accusation without proof: on the contrary, the onus is on the accused to prove themselves innocent. And it puts a whole load of responsibility on ISPs to do what the record (and film) industries tell them to do, at their own expense. Your broadband bill will rocket.
Probably one of the most fundamental points that these industries don't 'get' is that in a massive majority of cases (I'd put it around 90%), people are downloading because they can. They're not interested enough in the film/song enough that they would buy it, so the industry is not losing any money. On the contrary, it's getting free publicity.
If some kid in his bedroom in middle-America downloads a song and doesn't think much of it then the industry's lost nothing more than if he'd gone into Tower Records and put one of those 'have a listen' pair of headphones that they dot around such record shops, attached to a little plate on the wall, with a featured CD in, and decided not to buy the song there.
However, if he decides it's pretty good but not necessarily great, he's likely to keep an eye out for more material from that artist in future.
Panorama on Monday night was devoted to this bill. One of the group of opposing musicians, I forget who, said that it was like "taking away someone's music player, then complaining that they're not buying music anymore". Another said something along the lines of it being "boarding over shopfronts, and then wondering why no one's coming in and buying your goods".
Pretty simple stuff that it really doesn't take a genius to work out (if I can manage it, anyone can). And yet no one in the record industry seems able to comprehend it.
Quote: Aaron @ March 17 2010, 11:07 PM GMTsingle sales were at a record high in 2009.
Really though it's not a lot different to when I was young - yes I do remember it!
Home taping is killing music - or something like that - was the advertising campaign. And yes - a lot of people would tape everything and nobody would get any royalties - but loads of real music lovers would buy lots of albums as well as taping some too - either from friends or the library. You couldn't afford to buy everything but you'd give a fair bit to the record industry. and the ones I'd tape would be people like Queen, Elton John, Led Zeppelin - the people who were making enough money already - and buy records by groups like Be-Bop Deluxe, Curved Air and Faust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3jkUhG68wY
(Not quite what you were referring to, I know.)
OK, 'fess up. I do do hooky things but not a lot.
They're usually things that are not available any more or things that I sort of like, and would maybe like to have, but there's no way on Earth I would spend money on if downloading wasn't available.
I would have gone without.
I'm a Beethoven fan and if there was a new set of, say, the piano concertos that I wanted, I would buy it. To have the booklet, the case etc.
But if I just wanted to dip my toe, then downloading might be the answer.
Hope my ISP isn't reading this!
I've just gone through the site you posted up earlier, Aaron. I really do hope that such a bill isn't passed because, quite frankly, I do not want to lose my internet connection.
I have downloaded a lot of music from dubious sources, so I have my vested interest in not seeing this bill passed. I don't, however, think that it's fair to take what I've downloaded and then place me in a group of people who do not care about or support the music industry.
Me and my friends pirate a substantial amount of music, especially in comparison to other people our age - but we also invest a substantial amount in the record industry. I would not think it unreasonable to say I have probably spent about £500 on music related things (concerts, CDs, records, t-shirts, digital downloads) in the past year or maybe even the past 6-8 months. Out of my student budget that is an insane amount of money but I try to do it to keep the music industry afloat (though I'm sure it would be doing fine without me.) I've turned people onto music they would never hear without me giving them the files on a memory stick, I've convinced people to go to concerts and buy CDs. The culture of musical exchange is based on sharing an communality. My Dad talks of his friends sharing cassettes and now the pool of people is just widened with the internet. Yes, that means more sharing but it also means a vast new audience accessible only through the internet. Even small bands play all over the world nowadays without concentrated marketing. Such phenomena could only occur with a distributive tool like the internet - but this is kind of glossed over by the record industry.
Basically, I guess I'm saying I pirate a lot but I do my best to give back to the industry. This bill would just strangle the next generation of people like me and probably lead to some ridiculous token court cases like in America - it won't save an ailing industry which refuses to modernise.
One thought on this . . Simon Cowell.
Quote: Oldrocker @ March 18 2010, 12:23 AM GMTOne thought on this . . Simon Cowell.
What has he got to do with the music industry?
Nothing. But he makes a lot of money pretending that he does !
Oldrocker - Exactly my point, yes. It's the same for the majority of people I think: whether they download something freely or not, if they like it enough to buy it, they still will. If they don't buy it, then they weren't going to and wouldn't have heard it at all.
Yeah...
Elliot - Depressingly, it probably will become law, and the Pirate Party UK is, AFAIK, the only one opposed to it. You personally are a great demonstration of some of the key arguments behind the opposition of the Bill (on principle, never mind on the mass privacy-demolishing way it's being executed). The record industry does not understand the modern world. It's only just got to grips with 1998. It's entirely self-defeating. By pursuing these draconian actions, they'll only push people further underground and further away from detection. Nevermind the inevitable breeding of resentment and backlashes.
Unfortunately, the record companies don't see in any kind of larger context, or any long-term reality. Instead they choose to criminalise you, clearly a dedicated music fan. Exactly the kind of person they should be welcoming, embracing, talking to: not pushing away.
(Let's be clear here though; it's the act of making copies of and SHARING copyright material that's the crime, not of acquiring it.)
And of course it all goes back to the pirate radio stations.
The record companies were against them because they didn't pay any broadcasting royalties but the groups loved them for the exposure they got - and extra sales.
So you're saying that Peter Mandelson is the Tony Benn of the 2000s? I can see that.
This is a really, really good run-down of the latest report, which is indicative of the record industry's attitude as a whole.
Just finished 3 hours of cleaning my bedroom and bathroom. Another 3 hours and the house will be presentable for visitors this weekend. (My friends' band will be staying here Saturday after playing at SxSW Friday.) Looking forward to a few days of music and debauchery.