Your Opinions on File Sharing

[Ian]

Ignoring the legal situation for the moment, what do you think of free and open file sharing for the masses?

Do you agree on principle, would you participate if there was no chance for legal recourse or would do you disagree entirely?

I've got my own opinions, but I'll save it till later

 

[muckshifter]

uh oh ??

"files" ... If it wasn't for "sharing" I would have to buy my Linux CDs and software, as it stands now I only need a pack of 50 and I have all I need.


We are bound to get to the nitty-gritty anyway ... "File Sharing" is not illegal.

Now, who wants access to my 2,500 "files" ... you'll need 4 DVDs for some of them.

 

[Sckitty]

Lol...i got that same package Muck, i think that some file sharing would be alright but not too much.

 

[Me__2001]

its the best way to distribute files by far the only problem is verifying the files to see if they are what they are supposed to be

 

[CITech]

I think the original principles of file-sharing are OK, and thats why shareware, freeware and even things like the Linux family took off.

But where there is a potential for financial loss by distributing unauthorised material then it's not so good. I suppose if companies weren't trying to rip us off with high purchase prices, there might be a littl eless needto share. (Hope that makes sense!)

 

[Rush]

If CD`s or DVD`s were priced correctly at a fiver .. then everyone would be happy.. the big boys deserve all they get for their undoubted sheer GREED.

 

[Raje]

I like the idea of file sharing. I can get may hands on a few songs from an album. And If I really like it I may even go out and buy it.
But If I could go into a store and get the album I wanted for $5-$10 I might not even bother waiting for the download. I like instant gratification.

On another note.... I can't wait until these music stores come out with an Ipod station. Advertised like... you don't even need a computer come in and download only the songs you want.... $1.50 + tax per song. Yet another way the "Industry" would be able to rip off the ignorant.

 

[floppybootstomp]

The idea of file sharing is great, means I can offer up my Blackpool '92 holiday snaps for all who want to see them

But, the crunch is - audio and movies.

Flops' proposed media pricing:

New Release DVD's, priced for one year: £7.50
Back catalogue DVD's: £4.50
Special edition back catalogue DVD's with extra content: £6.00
New release CD's, priced for 18 months: £7.50
Back Catalogue CD's, from £3.00 to £5.00
CD Singles: £1.00
CD Singles with extra content, 2nd disc etc: £2.00

If media was priced thus, the corporate giants who flog us this stuff would observe Mr General Public going home with armfuls of the stuff I reckon.

But no, they just make us pay more out of greed, especially for more popular items. It seems ridiculous to me you still have to pay full price for a 40 year old Beatles album.

Same goes for Pink Floyd as well. Originally released in 1967, that will be £14.00 thank you sir.

I don't know the legality of sharing DVD movies and audio on the Internet but I'd gamble it's illegal.

Then I think of the argument with books, newspapers and magazines which typically will be read by about 3 different people.

I just don't know.

For myself, I never d/l movies but I do d/l a lot of audio files, mostly out of curiosity to check something out. If I like what I hear, I will often buy the CD.

This issue has been debated many times and I still don't have a clear point of view.

For now, I'm off to the library to look at their DVD and CD collection

 

[PotGuy]

I think file sharing is fine, as long as you are very careful what you d/l - ie no .exe's saying CALL OF DUTY 2 FULL VERSION + CRACK, which are 300kb...

i think its funny how for years the industry has charged £10-15 a cd, when 1 cd costs about 10p isnt it? and a jewel case about 50p? at most? +recording fees, so really a cd should be costing around £7? when we are being charged £12?

and they complain when we want to share rather than buy....

 

[floppybootstomp]

PotGuy, it may be a little naive to assume the only cost of a CD is the disc itself and packaging.

Ever seen a pie chart breaking down the cost?

First, you have to make the music. This involves musicians, engineers and studio time.

Then there's advertising, distribution, band profit, record company profit, wholesaler's profit and good ol Tony Blair wants a slice as well with VAT.

Same goes for movies, The Chronicles of Narnia cost £87 million to make. Lots of movies don't even break even.

But that's another argument really, if they made some good original films instead of relying on tired old formulas.....

 

[PotGuy]

Maybe, just trying to make a point really. How about i change the recording cost to £6.40, so we have a nice even £7?

 

[floppybootstomp]

Maybe, just trying to make a point really. How about i change the recording cost to £6.40, so we have a nice even £7?

Sounds good to me

 

[tomsega]

I love the way the music industry is trying to blame the internet for its problems, when they know perfectly well it is the music industries own fault for stagnating and commercialising an art. Quite simply, the music industry has been f*cking us since...erm, well, the 60's probably. Granted, the sales of artists such as Britney Spears and S Club 7 help pay for the studio time of more reputable alternative artists, but the likes of EMI and Sony have shown no intention to meet a happy medium - instead choosing to continue shoving clones down the throat of an increasingly apathetic audience.

For much of the same reasoning Hollywood is deflating like a punctured raft as well, although the simultaneous decline in cinema attendence proves that this is down to boredom rather than file sharing.

As for software... well I don't mind paying for it, but by principle I'm not going to pay £120 for mandatory software from a company with a monopoly share of a market. (Windows XP)

 

[ChristopherP]

I've bought shed loads of albums - because they all cost me about £1.50 each from the Internet. I think that if i went into a shop and an album was say... £2 i would definatly buy it!

Computer games and movies are the main thing though... £9.99 for a new game, and £7.00 for a new DVD and piracy would drop like a lead brick.

 

[kingnathski88]

I agree with all this, mainlt its the compasnies to blame, if they lowered their prices then i reckon it would end a lot of arguments, i find HMV the real robers, they charge the most extortionate prices i have ever seen.

 

[cirianz]

I don't know about anyone else, but my personal philosophy has always been that, if I don't download anything that I might otherwise have paid for then the music industry isn't losing revenue. And I'm afraid that, since the average price of a CD over here is $34 - $39 NZ then that covers quite a wide field.

As an artist I have very mixed feelings about this, since a respect for copyright is an essential part of what we (John & I) do, and if the music industry was willing to offer their music (either by CD or from online 'shops') at reasonable prices I would certainly pay. But at the prices they ask I simply can't afford to buy them even if I wish to.

I don't download movies as, based on the same personal logic, if I wait until they're no longer "New Releases" then I can afford to rent them & time is not, to me anyway, a good enough justification.

But I must admit that my opinion of the movie industry is not much higher than that of the music industry. In general & avoiding the issue of major CG effects type films, any movie made in Hollywood, can be made just as well and for a fraction of the price in Britain. One of the biggest differences in cost is the ridiculous 'fees' charged by Hollywood 'superstars' who seem to be under the impression that, because they're well known & (perhaps) do their job well, they are somhow entitled to charge obscene amounts for their time & appearance in films.
Do they work hard? Yes I'm sure they do & so do factory floor workers. Is their job stressfull? Yes, but then I've known my ex husband (who teaches 3rd year comp sci at the university) to work more than 48 hours around the clock to meet deadlines when marking assignments. A couple of times he's been there over 70 hours, catching occasional quick naps on the bench when he could. His average day ends at 7pm.
In Britain an actor gets paid 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' as much as any employee in any business. Sorry, but what's wrong with that?
To me Hollywood is just another industry exploiting the public.

Oh, another view on audio downloads, I have known more than one local musical Artist & band who have uploaded a couple of their own songs onto P2P networks as an attempt to expand their listener base & maybe get people interested in hearing some more of their music. P2P is a wonderful tool to get out there, to get heard & to get known for small bands & individuals.
Not relevant to audio downloading as a moral issue on the whole I suppose, but definitely another example of a comercial industry once again running right over the individual artist in their pursuit to increase their own profit margin.

 

[PotGuy]

actually apparently the british film industry is dying on it's ass because we are charging too much as well. The only major film to be filmed in britain next year is the new James Bond

 

[kingnathski88]

actually apparently the british film industry is dying on it's ass because we are charging too much as well. The only major film to be filmed in britain next year is the new James Bond

which will be a load of crap

 

[itsme]

Maybe this will shed some light on the subject! Although this only! Refers to MP3s. As that is all I download, I never download anything else, always scan for Viruses before opening.



The copyright laws surrounding MP3s are contentious and have lead to much debate and numerous lawsuits.

MP3 technology is legal. It's the way MP3s are used that can cause trouble. If a track has been copyrighted, the legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell it, is exclusive.

Like CDs, MP3s are sometimes pirated or used illegally, often by someone saving CD tracks in MP3 format and making them accessible on the Web. But there's no need to break the law to find good music. Often you'll need to pay to download an MP3 but some major music companies now offer free MP3 files as a way to promote bands.

The aim of copyright laws is to protect the lyrics, songwriters, singers, musical composition and recordings. Copyrighted material can only be distributed or downloaded in MP3 format if the artist has authorised it. The same is true of CDs that are converted into MP3 files and posted on the Web. It's OK to make MP3 copies of CDs or albums that you own providing they are only for your own use.

Please be careful - you don't want to violate copyright laws, but also bear in mind that if you stick to reputable sites, such as MP3.com, performers and copyright holders have usually granted permission for any free downloads. Alternatively, go to the individual artists' Web sites, where a few MP3s are often provided for free download.

 

[muckshifter]

Ignoring the legal situation for the moment, what do you think of free and open file sharing for the masses?

Do you agree on principle, would you participate if there was no chance for legal recourse or would do you disagree entirely?

I've got my own opinions, but I'll save it till later

It is what the Internet is for ... sharing ... if you do not wish to share, do not put it on the Internet.


" ... would you participate if there was no chance for legal recourse ... "

Yup, I would ...