Researcher Peter Bradwell said the findings should force companies and politicians to 'wake up to the changing nature' of the music industry as the Government plans to disconnect illegal downloaders from the internet in a 'three strikes and you're out' rule.

Are the brits really going to go forward with that 'three strikes you're out' rule? if so, that's amazingly asinine. how do you enforce something like that? And how could you really keep a file trader offline? I mean, i'm never more than 10 minutes from an open wi-fi hot spot and I live in the middle of nowhere. someone in a large city could find ways to jack someone else's spot and download with impunity and any trace you run won't find them, it'll get the poor schulb who's wi-fi spot they're using.

Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Skail: Well, geez, I could have told them that. People who download and actually LIKE the music are more likely to actually buy the albums in one or another medium, just so they can have it. What always drove me nuts was when I'd hear a song on the radio, love it, buy the album, and realize the other 8-15 songs were complete garbage. The ability to "preview" the entire album is invaluable.

A big steaming pile of this.

Specious argument is specious. The appropriate comparison is to the counterfactual case; i.e., what would be the expenditures by those individuals in the absence of the availablity of free illegal downloads?

feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

I've never understood this attitude. you'd have to be completely ignorant of the situation to sit there and just 'hrmp. well it's illegal and so there! LALALALA! NOT LISTENING! LALALALA!'

feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Well that's narrow minded of you. Makes sense, it fits you.

GAT_00: feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Well that's narrow minded of you. Makes sense, it fits you.

Narrowminded? I think not.

If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

feckingmorons:
If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

Nope, it's civil disobedience. Check this out. Look at how much money the entertainment industry is spending to keep the laws in their favor.

Now, I don't know about you but I don't have $48,418,658 lying around to hire lobbyists and bribe lawmakers. So how am I supposed to compete with that? Gandhi said that we have no obligation to obey an unjust law...and that by ignoring an unjust law, by making a mockery of that law, we force that law to change.

Consider file trading a modern version of civil disobedience. we're telling the corporations that they can write whatever bad/unjust laws they want and we will STILL ignore it.

feckingmorons: Narrowminded? I think not.

If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

Ok, I'll give you a personal example why your ideas are outdated. A friend of mine loaned me all of West Wing to watch, after she convinced me I should watch it. She was right, it's awesome. I've watched other episodes from time to time online. It's also going to get me to buy the whole series. Grabbing a song online is equivalent. There is a straight correlation between what is "theft" of TV shows, movies, and music and buying more of those shows and music. Why should it be illegal? I've personally proved time and time again that the law is idiotic because it prevents increased sales.

I'm in love with legal downloading, even though I was reluctant to embrace it at first.

Fact is, the cd is simply a horrible medium for music and while better than tapes, today it's just not important anymore. I remember the days right before leaving on a trip, and having to choose about 20 cds because more than that would start to be burdensome. Now I can get literally days worth of music on an iPod. I really don't care for a comeback to the days when I couldn't listen to what I wanted exactly when I wanted.

On other hand, I also really love music and I find a iPod on its own to be too impersonal. I still like to own a physical copy of the music I listen to.

I stopped buying cds long ago and only buy vinyls instead. If I love a band/record, I simply buy the LP or EP, then illegally download the tracks. If I want someone's record but I'm not that bothered with having a physical copy, I simply go on iTunes and buy it.

The only mp3s I have that I do not own are basically live/never released sessions and songs, or records that I can't even find on eBay. If they get reissued, I buy them then. If not, well, not exactly stealing.

Illegal downloads are also a great way to sample an album first and know if its worth buying. It's also a relief to be able to spend money wisely and not spend $15 on a record I'll actually hate.

Also a great way to discover bands.

Owners of Record Companies and artists that fight against illegal downloads are stupid. If you produce great material, people downloading it illegally can only help your career, because they most likely would not have heard of you otherwise. Adapt to the new reality, embrace it fully and quality will always be rewarded

/Bought a record from the late 70s a few weeks ago, and inside the sleeve there was an old warning from the UK that said: "Copying music on tapes will kill the music industry". Always good for a laugh.

are we suppose to be shocked that people that care about music use every way possible to obtain songs?!

/Love legal downloading and too tired of beating my head against the wall explaining how stealing is stealing

feckingmorons: GAT_00: feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

Well that's narrow minded of you. Makes sense, it fits you.

Narrowminded? I think not.

If people want the laws changed they should work to get the laws changed, not simply break the law to benefit themselves.

Illegal music file sharing is not civil disobedience, it is simply theft.

Yeah. I think I'm the only person I know who doesn't download music illegally. If I hear a song I like I might search online for additional tracks, using sites like Deezer (which is really pissing me off lately, but that's another story). Then I either buy or lose interest.

FarkinNortherner: Weaver95: Are the brits really going to go forward with that 'three strikes you're out' rule?

It's an upcoming bill. Despite the government's own research indicating that it was counter-productive, the leading ISPs asserting that they will not provide user information in the absence of a court order, etc.

'Lord' Mandelson is in the pocket of the media industry. There's every possibility we'll have a new government before this is put before parliament, but with Murdoch backing the Conservatives it's hard to imagine they'll be any more open to reality.

I think the UK is going to see an explosion of file trading if that law goes into effect.

Lumber Jack Off: I download a metric ton of music. if I don't like it, I delete it. if I find myself listening to it often, I buy it. last year I bought about 60 cd's. it's only November of this year and i've already surpassed that with 66 purchases. I buy what I like. if an album sucks, fark it. I hate blind purchases and you should too.

I'm a pretty staunch anti-downloader, but what you've described sounds like fair use to me. Or at least as fair as it's going to get. It's assumed that a person who buys music is going to listen to it more than once.

I object to people substituting illegal downloads for music purchases.

As far as blind purchases go, I've bought more than my share of CDs on the strength of a single song, only to be disappointed by most of the tracks.

There's a music chain where I live that lets browsers scan the barcode of a CD and listen to the first 30 seconds or so of every song on a given album. Is this commonly available elsewhere?

If Castro wanted to f*ck with the US, he'd upgrade his country's infrastructure and host enormously powerful servers that allowed people to pirate content to their heart's content. Then charge a minimal fee to access his servers. He'd make a metric assload of cash by simply giving digital pirates a safe harbor.

spleef420: feckingmorons: Bank robbers probably spend a lot more money than their neighbors too, but that does not make it OK to rob banks. It is still illegal.

Rationalize it any way you want, but it is illegal.

had you actually read any of the law you're yapping about you'd know that it's "making available for download" that is illegal, not downloading itself.

Immoral, insensitive and fattening, sure...but not illegal.

Both making available for downloading and downloading pirated music or other electronic files are Federal crimes.

You are simply ignoring that to assuage your guilt.

I don't care what you do. It will be you being sued or arrested or fined or imprisoned not me. Sure they can't catch all of the illegal file sharers, but they do catch a few. If you want to take that risk go right ahead.

feckingmorons: I don't care what you do. It will be you being sued or arrested or fined or imprisoned not me. Sure they can't catch all of the illegal file sharers, but they do catch a few. If you want to take that risk go right ahead.

They catch less than one tenth of one percent of all file traders currently running bittorrent clients.

One tenth of one percent. And this is after stacking the deck against free market competition. Sure, in a warped and perverted way you have a point - file trading IS 'illegal'. But you ignore the fact that the laws regarding this technology are the results of corrupting the legislative process when you say that.

Putting all that aside from the moment, let's get back to the 'one tenth of one percent' figure. Despite bribing congress and lying under oath to get their law(s) passed, nothing the music industry has done as put a dent in file trading. Nothing. It cannot be stopped. They could pass more laws, and still file trading would continue. They could pile laws so high that you could see them from orbit - and STILL file trading would continue. It's here to stay. So what do you propose to do about it?

beaverteeth92: What if I go to the library, borrow an album, then rip it into iTunes and return it? Should that entitle EMI, Sony, Warner Brothers, or Universal to sue me?

Well, that's not fair use. It would be the same thing as borrowing a book and copying it for yourself.

Glitchwerks: My 2 cents...

The amount of music out there completely exceeds any rational attempt to listen to it all or purchase it all.

30 second previews don't cut it either. You have to be able to listen to music where you want, when you want. Plus, all these legal download sites are so absolutely slow when it comes to new releases, and complete rubbish when it comes to cost and quality.

Fact is, the pirates are far more up to speed on new music and releases and far more helpful than any traditional media in spotlighting new music.

Lots of these sites like iTunes have the same problem artists had in the past with chain stores like Tower. They rip off independent artists and/or make it a hassle for them to get their music on the site.
Face it, the pirates won. Not just because they offered it for free, but because they were so ahead of everyone else.

You visit any music sharing site, they are not talking about the farking Jonas Brothers or Lady Gaga. They are talking about music that matters. The majors shoved crap down people's throats for so long, the consumers got sick of it and went elsewhere.

Good riddance, music industry.

I have no love for the music industry, but how is pirating "music that matters" not ripping off the artists?

FeedTheCollapse:
Nogale: I have no love for the music industry, but how is pirating "music that matters" not ripping off the artists?

I think that issue is entirely up to the artists themselves. I'm not a musician, but I do find the idea that a fan who is paying for an album is somehow "A Real Fan", compared to a fan who downloaded the same album illegally, completely preposterous.

I'm not interested in questions of who's more serious about music or who's a "real" fan. Musicians make a living from their music. If you download illegally, you're depriving them of part of their income.

Look, buying secondhand books is perfectly legitimate, but I won't buy secondhand if the author's still alive. They wrote it, they deserve to be paid for it. Why don't musicians?