Guest Anonymous Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 ^^^^You can't copy the Sky films to DVD. Well at least the Pay per view ones, as they are copyright encrypted. I know because I tried it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 If if can be played, it can be copied. That's what I find so annoying about DRM; it only makes life awkward for the legitimate user by placing obstacles to fair use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 ^^^Yes, the old Sky films could be copied, I had a gadget that could do that.. I hasten to add, only for personal use But I never figured out a way to beat the Sky digital encryption. Please tell.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 ^^ even with a 1 metre IDE cable and a conveniently located PC? Hmmm, methinks i've said enough! If if can be played, it can be copied. That's what I find so annoying about DRM; it only makes life awkward for the legitimate user by placing obstacles to fair use. Precisely my point Fjool. I do honestly want to pay, download (quick, easy, more money for artist and gives me what i will do with a CD anyway) and enjoy. But it is so awkward that its easier to download by other means. Does anyone know what sort of cut iTunes/Audible etc take from an artist? (apologies for continuing OT!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeriebryan Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Does this mean that artists, and the industry that supports them, should spend millions every year paying for the privilege of producing recorded music and give it away for free? Don’t artists deserve to be paid for the work they put into their creative endeavors? Don’t record companies deserve to make returns on their investments? How does the industry support them if the artists only end up with something like a 5% cut or less?The percentage artists make depends on the contract they have signed In general, distributors and retailers take the largest percentages of CD sales, as they're dealing with physical product and have the highest overheads. For an internationally distributed CD, there are many links in the chain, from the songwriters to the record shops, each of whom take a percentage of the gross income. And the percentage the artists gets depends on where in the financial chain the royalty base figure is calculated from. It may be what the record company charges the distributor, what the distributor charges the retailer, the end retail price or a combination of the above. Its not as simple as 'artists get 5%, music industry big wigs get 95%' But artists are in full possession of the facts before they sign any contract. It is a legal requirement for artists to have unbiased legal advice before entering record agreements in most western countries. If they don't like the T&Cs, they shouldn't sign. It's a pet hate of mine when bands sign a contract, accept ££££s in advance fees then turn around and complain about their contractual obligations I think artists have every right to make money.Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to be that since artists only get a relatively small percentage of CD sales, people should be able to download music for free. Surely from the artists point of view 5% of something is better than 0% of nothing. South Park’s point seems to be that “real artists†shouldn’t try to protect their music and they should “just play and be stoked that so many people are listening†because “people are always gonna find a way to copy [their] music and swap it for free†Right. But you missed out an important bit: "but if they were good songs then people still would have bought tickets to see our band in concert." The bands are still making money. And plenty of it. How much do the Stones make on tour? Extreme example but you know what I mean.This raises an interesting point. Most bigger bands tour with the aid of 'tour support' money and marketing campaigns paid for by record companies. That's why most bands 'tour' to 'support' the release of an album. Without financial support and marketing from record companies it is very difficult to make touring financially viable. And for a band to be touring regularly, they generally have a few albums under their belts, which have been paid for by record companies Instead of fighting this P2P/Torrent stuff, the industry should embrace it. There are plenty of people in those community who agree with this statement.I completely agree that "P2P/Torrent stuff" is an excellent way for the industry to raise awareness and provide free samples, promos, videos etc. As a friend of mine who runs an independent record label says, 'its cheaper than getting radio play'. However, I don't think it's fair to expect the industry to give away commercial products for free For me, buying the band's CD's and merch from the show is the best way to be sure that they're getting the fair credit.I agree to some extent, but artists don't necessarily get a larger percentage of sales at venues. Remember that most venues take a merchandising fee of up to 25% of gross sales. The record company still make the same percentage on CDs sold in shops as they do in venues. It's just another sales channel really Just to play Devil's Advocate here: if you illegally download the album then send the band the money you would've bought it with, they get 100% of your money. I'm not saying do it, but it's interesting, no?Interesting, but not a sustainable model. If the record company doesn't make any return on their investment, the band will be dropped Many of the points I have made above can result in circular arguments. I often find myself supporting both sides of the coin at once! Does anyone know what sort of cut iTunes/Audible etc take from an artist?It depends on the contract the artist has with the record company, but it is generally a higher percentage than CD sales as there is no physical product costs (apologies for continuing OT!)Ditto! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Its not as simple as 'artists get 5%, music industry big wigs get 95%' But artists are in full possession of the facts before they sign any contract. It is a legal requirement for artists to have unbiased legal advice before entering record agreements in most western countries. If they don't like the T&Cs, they shouldn't sign. I'd agree that anybody signing contracts should be very aware of the fine print of any offer, but on the other hand there does seem to be some very creative book keeping that goes on in the entertainment industry - Lord of the Rings trilogy only managed $830,000 profit did it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Isn’t the new BBC I-Player service a file sharing network would the BBC have to shut them selves down as wellThe BBC hold the copyright to the programs and are free to distribute them however they wish. The iPlayer doesn't (easily) allow the download and/or storage of files, which simplifies matters in terms of copyright as 3rd parties can't redistribute the material. Peeriebryan I had not made my point very well. (This week, I have been having a dose of the Archbishop of Canterbury mumble-titus). The Quote â€file sharing network†would need to be defined by lawyers for use in this particular circumstances, and they could make a complete hash of it as lawyers do. Never mind that some old fudy dudy sitting on the bench will have his own interpretation of it as well. That wont help ether and then they may screw it up for everybody full stop. The RIAA or whatever the UK alternative is and everybody else may end up shooting them selves in the foot. And maybe spoiling it for everybody. My PERSONAL OPINION ( And not SHETLINK or ANYBODY who RUN and OR help to MODERATE IT) the RIAA are just as crooked as everybody else. If Mps can fiddle there books so can they. They just use the Law to there advantage. I don't think that the artists, get any more money, than their original contract lets them have. If the money was going to the artist Some people but not everyone mite live with it. but it seems that the artist is being screwed just as bad as the public who buy the music and movies. One thing is certain once lawyers get involved, they could argue for years over a particular point of law I also accept peeriebryan point about The BBC hold the copyright to the programs. That had escaped me for some reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Does this mean that artists, and the industry that supports them, should spend millions every year paying for the privilege of producing recorded music and give it away for free? Don’t artists deserve to be paid for the work they put into their creative endeavours? Don’t record companies deserve to make returns on their investments? Or maybe it’s just that some people prefer not to pay for music? Its right that people should be paid for their work. “Or maybe it’s just that some people prefer not to pay for music? †Well that’s a given I think. I was going to buy Long Gone Before Daylight when it came out. I thought to myself, it’s the Cardigans, they’re great, I’m not a communist, so I really should give them some cash for their efforts and indeed the people who invested the bucks in them to enable them to produce their music. HMV £17.99! ‘Sizzling scrotes! That’s a hefty amount’ I screamed. Why not have a wage cap for artists and use these new methods of distribution to make their work available to people; cutting out the cartel of record companies (is there still more than one nowadays?) and their demanding contractual obligations that artists rail about while at the same time giving the artists a guaranteed wage. That way we get music made by people who want to do it for its own sake, not just for the career (like er…whatever is at no.1 in the pop charts just now; Atomic Kitten or something), and; I'm thinking, an improvement in the quality of output. I don't know how to pay for recording costs and paying the artists their capped wages. In Rainbows type donations? Radio play royalties? TV advert themes? State funding? so people like Keith Moon can have a ‘productive life alternative’ to costly tax funded mental healthcare or prison. Didn’t this current situation almost happen with Punk? DIY music, promotion and distribution. What was lacking was a distribution and promotion method that was bigger than the independent record labels that the bands often started themselves. In the absence of Bit torrent we get The Clash signing to CBS. Nowadays we almost don't need record companies to distribute and promote music. "The problem for artists isn't piracy, it's obscurity" Tim O'Reilly How many great bands have we missed out on because of the risks involved in the traditional record industry? The Beatles were turned down by Decca Records. Open up the channels of distribution and promotion and we lessen the risk of the greatest band in the world being kyboshed by some A&R man in a bad mood predicting ‘the end of guitar groups’ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Instead of pissing into the wind (shutting down bit-torrent/p2p sites), why doesn't the industry embrace technology and figure out a distribution method based on Bit Torrent? And if the big wigs are going to continue arresting people for downloading, at least be consistent. Don't just arrest one person and think it'll scare people, arrest hundreds, thousands, millions. Actually do it and it'll quell downloaders. But then again, they won't and that's a good thing, because that would be a bit costly. It's the whole drugs arguement; arrest the supplier, not the user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Just to play Devil's Advocate here: if you illegally download the album then send the band the money you would've bought it with, they get 100% of your money. I'm not saying do it, but it's interesting, no? Interesting, but not a sustainable model. If the record company doesn't make any return on their investment, the band will be dropped If distribution is outwith the record company anyway, who cares if a band is dropped from a label if there is an alternative way of distribution and promotion. I think it is more likely that the problem is with the payment part. As pb has already said “Or maybe it’s just that some people prefer not to pay for music?†Record companies are doing the job of receiving money from sales which means artists and producers and record company shareholders all get paid. This is the part that isn't covered in the downloading model not the distribution and promotion part. So if donations are actually made to the artists I don't see how the record company is needed at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 So if donations are actually made to the artists I don't see how the record company is needed at all.I think they're less and less relevant and they know it; hence the headless-chicken panic they exhibit in response to digital distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Most Bit torrent sites have a ‘most popular’ page with all the latest films, music and software on them. Some Bit torrent sites have a ‘recently uploaded’ page which can have anything on them. I suggested to a guitarist friend of mine in Shetland to upload his band's album to some of these ‘recently uploaded’ pages and include a text file with a bio and a paypal account number for donations or something to see if there was any interest. At the very least someone would have heard his music that ordinarily wouldn’t have done. As he's a work shy drug addicted fop he didn't get it together though. I imagine he went to the Thule to score some crack cocaine instead, and spent the rest of the day in a mind bending emotional hell, pretending to be some kind of cat. With his willy out. Is Mareel (or even Shetlink) going to have anything to do with digital distribution of Shetland music? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roachmill Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Europe rejects plan to criminalize file-sharing A couple of snippets from TFA:The European Parliament rejected attempts to criminalize the sharing of files by private individuals and threw out the idea of banning copyright abusers from the Internet, in a plenary vote Thursday. The vote was close, with 314 MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) voting in favor of an amendment to scrap what many consider draconian and disproportionate measures to protect copyright over the internet, and 297 voting against the amendment.The record industry was disappointed with the vote. You don't say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.