The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7522334.stm[/URL]
I think this has been coming for some time. I'm actually suprised it's taken this long for the broadband companies to bow to the pressure and start cracking down on filesharing but i'm wondering to what extent. Will they be targeting just the uploaders or everyone?
What i'm really interested in though is the effect on the music industry. Now there seems to be two views on this. The music industry is of the opinion that if downloading stops, everyone will go out and buy more cd's. Everyone else i've spoken to has pointed out that without being able to listen to albums beforehand, they're actually less likely to go out and buy an album based on the strength of 1 track. I can look at pretty much every album i've bought over the last 3 years and know i'd previewed it before i spent money.
Opinions then? False dawn or start of the end. Good for the music industry or are they shooting themselves in the foot?
I think this has been coming for some time. I'm actually suprised it's taken this long for the broadband companies to bow to the pressure and start cracking down on filesharing but i'm wondering to what extent. Will they be targeting just the uploaders or everyone?
What i'm really interested in though is the effect on the music industry. Now there seems to be two views on this. The music industry is of the opinion that if downloading stops, everyone will go out and buy more cd's. Everyone else i've spoken to has pointed out that without being able to listen to albums beforehand, they're actually less likely to go out and buy an album based on the strength of 1 track. I can look at pretty much every album i've bought over the last 3 years and know i'd previewed it before i spent money.
Opinions then? False dawn or start of the end. Good for the music industry or are they shooting themselves in the foot?
Page:
They will make monsters... It happens all the time.
Imeem is legal and has all the appropriate licenses from the music industry. They arent going to go after sites they effectively endorse.
incidently, how do they get the liecences? I mean, users can upload music, how does imeem manage to get music from them?
Imeem is legal and has all the appropriate licenses from the music industry. They arent going to go after sites they effectively endorse.
incidently, how do they get the liecences? I mean, users can upload music, how does imeem manage to get music from them?
spoonbeast wrote:
> My guess is that they'll try and crack down on online duke boxes.
> Websites like imeem where people upload music but you can't
> download it and you have to listen to it online. Its one ofthe
> reasons why i don't buy music or aquire it illegally.
Imeem is legal and has all the appropriate licenses from the music industry. They arent going to go after sites they effectively endorse.
> Probably to the point where i would
> probably start aquiring illegally as a sort of revenge.
Yeah, give them legal grounds to extort money from you, that'll teach them!
> My guess is that they'll try and crack down on online duke boxes.
> Websites like imeem where people upload music but you can't
> download it and you have to listen to it online. Its one ofthe
> reasons why i don't buy music or aquire it illegally.
Imeem is legal and has all the appropriate licenses from the music industry. They arent going to go after sites they effectively endorse.
> Probably to the point where i would
> probably start aquiring illegally as a sort of revenge.
Yeah, give them legal grounds to extort money from you, that'll teach them!
My guess is that they'll try and crack down on online duke boxes. Websites like imeem where people upload music but you can't download it and you have to listen to it online. Its one ofthe reasons why i don't buy music or aquire it illegally.
Its a great place to get rare and excellent music like steve contes last confession or bad jesus, but once they start cracking down on that, i'll get extremely angry and will probably hate the music industry for it. Probably to the point where i would probably start aquiring illegally as a sort of revenge.
Its a great place to get rare and excellent music like steve contes last confession or bad jesus, but once they start cracking down on that, i'll get extremely angry and will probably hate the music industry for it. Probably to the point where i would probably start aquiring illegally as a sort of revenge.
Nin wrote:
> I think that once downloading is cracked down on they'll start
> focusing more on Youtube etc. I know they are already but once
> the broadband companies set a precedent on copywrited material,
> the video sharing websites will be next.
Then subverting forums that suggest file sharing may actually be doing some good, then forums that say anything about the government, then the UK can change it's name to China...
> I think that once downloading is cracked down on they'll start
> focusing more on Youtube etc. I know they are already but once
> the broadband companies set a precedent on copywrited material,
> the video sharing websites will be next.
Then subverting forums that suggest file sharing may actually be doing some good, then forums that say anything about the government, then the UK can change it's name to China...
Nin wrote:
> I think that once downloading is cracked down on they'll start
> focusing more on Youtube etc.
With the new number video of all time being Girlfriend, I think YouTube needs to close :P
> I think that once downloading is cracked down on they'll start
> focusing more on Youtube etc.
With the new number video of all time being Girlfriend, I think YouTube needs to close :P
I think that once downloading is cracked down on they'll start focusing more on Youtube etc. I know they are already but once the broadband companies set a precedent on copywrited material, the video sharing websites will be next.
who knows where it'll go. They might even start attacking legit websites saying that the industry is losing money in the CD markets to online downloads.
Do you reckon it will affect rapidshare downloading?
pb wrote:
> No-one is really going after people who download TV programmes
> at the moment, so it's a mute point. Films are a different
> matter as they tend to come out to illegally download when the
> film hits the cinema, thereby killing revenue from cinema
> tickets, which hits the cinemas as well as the film companies.
Ok, my experience with downloading legally was a while back and things have obviously changed somewhat since then. Personally, I buy albums, rather than download stuff. I like to have a physical product, and with cds so cheap on play, I'd rather get the actual thing.
As for what I've quoted above from pb, surely it's all got to be covered by the same legislation? You can't say "we'll bring in these rules for illegal music downloads now, and ignore tv programmes as they don't happen much." File sharing is file sharing, and if the item is copyrighted (is that a word? Doesn't sound right) then it shouldn't matter whether it's an image, audio file, tv or film. If rules are going to be brought in to cover digital distribution, then it has to cover everything, surely?
> No-one is really going after people who download TV programmes
> at the moment, so it's a mute point. Films are a different
> matter as they tend to come out to illegally download when the
> film hits the cinema, thereby killing revenue from cinema
> tickets, which hits the cinemas as well as the film companies.
Ok, my experience with downloading legally was a while back and things have obviously changed somewhat since then. Personally, I buy albums, rather than download stuff. I like to have a physical product, and with cds so cheap on play, I'd rather get the actual thing.
As for what I've quoted above from pb, surely it's all got to be covered by the same legislation? You can't say "we'll bring in these rules for illegal music downloads now, and ignore tv programmes as they don't happen much." File sharing is file sharing, and if the item is copyrighted (is that a word? Doesn't sound right) then it shouldn't matter whether it's an image, audio file, tv or film. If rules are going to be brought in to cover digital distribution, then it has to cover everything, surely?
YH wrote:
> What about TV programmes? I pay my TV licence, as I'm sure you
> all do. So, because I've paid for programmes by the BBC, does
> that make it alright for me to download them and keep them? It's
> just the same as recording them off the telly, right?
>
> What about programmes on other free-to-air channels. ITV? C4
> etc? Ok, if you download them, they've had the adverts stripped
> out. But if you recorded it, you'd skip through the ads anyway,
> so what's the difference?
Not sure about this but I think it makes sense, but I think the problem is all down to 'personal' use
I think you're completely within your rights to record anything off the television for your own -personal- use at a later date. However, it's the sharing of the files on the internet, as in say, a new way of public broadcasting, that makes it illegal. I don't see who's losing out here though.
The music thing is nothing more than money, it's true, and they're definitely deluded to think that every download equals a sale.
I think the reduced quality sample isn't such a bad route.. definitely not that watermark thing though, argh! That would completely destroy the whole point, much more than a lower quality sample would. Or maybe a set amount of plays you can use.
Basically, no matter -what- they do to control it, it's gonna have a workaround. People start tracking music downloads, then they're going to disguise music downloads so you can't find them, and then the only way of finding it will be through the amount of bandwidth used. Nothing will work. I think yes, everyone's to fault here, but unless the consumers and the labels start talking, and come to an agreement, it'll just get worse and worse.
> What about TV programmes? I pay my TV licence, as I'm sure you
> all do. So, because I've paid for programmes by the BBC, does
> that make it alright for me to download them and keep them? It's
> just the same as recording them off the telly, right?
>
> What about programmes on other free-to-air channels. ITV? C4
> etc? Ok, if you download them, they've had the adverts stripped
> out. But if you recorded it, you'd skip through the ads anyway,
> so what's the difference?
Not sure about this but I think it makes sense, but I think the problem is all down to 'personal' use
I think you're completely within your rights to record anything off the television for your own -personal- use at a later date. However, it's the sharing of the files on the internet, as in say, a new way of public broadcasting, that makes it illegal. I don't see who's losing out here though.
The music thing is nothing more than money, it's true, and they're definitely deluded to think that every download equals a sale.
I think the reduced quality sample isn't such a bad route.. definitely not that watermark thing though, argh! That would completely destroy the whole point, much more than a lower quality sample would. Or maybe a set amount of plays you can use.
Basically, no matter -what- they do to control it, it's gonna have a workaround. People start tracking music downloads, then they're going to disguise music downloads so you can't find them, and then the only way of finding it will be through the amount of bandwidth used. Nothing will work. I think yes, everyone's to fault here, but unless the consumers and the labels start talking, and come to an agreement, it'll just get worse and worse.
Page: