BBC Clicky

It is illegal, and yet it has become a part of many people's lives, downloading content to try before they buy, or for whatever reason.
I think it shows that people want to try before they buy, what if they don't like the film/album? It shows that consumers want flexibility and want cheaper content. I know it's wrong, but consumers have spoken and media companies need to start listening, as apposed to suing people left right and center...

The whole try-before-you-buy argument is bunkum. If that was the case no-one would have bought anything in the pre-p2p days.

And you can generally try before you buy without having to resort to bootlegging (a much better term than piracy), either by using legal streaming services such as Spotify, or by listening to the previews on legal downloads sites.

The fact remains, however, that downloads are generally over-priced and that we’re not given a choice of format/quality. Buy from iTunes a you can’t choose MP3; buy from Amazon et al and you have to have crappy, out-of-date MP3.

Thing is, disconnecting sharers won’t change a thing. The files will still be out there, all over the world and technology will evolve to make it harder if not impossible to track sharers (it’s debatable whether it’s reliably possible now). Downloads will still be over-priced.

Are you not old enough to remember tape to tape, (both audio and video) recorders?

Also, back before P2P, software, (and I'm going back to the DOS days, was a lot smaller, and copying floppy disks wasn't entirely unheard of.

Old enough, unfortunately, but in my experience if you taped a mate’s tape/record, you didn’t then go out and buy it later. You just listened to the copy. Try-before-you-buy is merely an argument bootleggers use to justify the practice.

And before i get flamed, yes I know there are people who have bought stuff after downloading a share. But anecdotal evidence does not change the fact that globally music sales are dwindling while sharing, as far as anyone can tell, continues to increase.

If I was a musician, composer, producer, engineer or anyone else trying to earn a living from the music biz, I’d be mighty pissed off at record companies who’s only answer is to raise headline prices (see recent iTunes hike) and unplug people’s home internet connections, which may of course be shared by many users.

It may not have been as common, but it definitely took place. I certainly remember Dad talking about copying games from one floppy disk to another.
For music, yes, there are emerging technologies to preview it, but what about video and software? Demos can be restrictive so you can't see what you can achieve.



Exactly, media (music, video, software, etc) needs to be distributed in a flexible way in a flexible format. Licenses are expensive and aren't particularly flexable when you have paid out for them...



Agreed



Who is to blame? The record companies are driving people to cheaper alternatives, they just happen to be free and illegal

Hahaha! I remember copying games from cassette tape to cassette tape!!!


Completely agree. Most of the cost of current singles is blamed on packaging and distribution, but despite there being no artwork/cd/case/shipping/etc, the prices are still exorbitant.


I'd be mighty pissed off at how much they profit! From what I recall, artists receive something like 5p per record sold. Everything else goes to the fatcats at the record company. Slash the amount they get --> more sales --> more profit

As for 'try-before-you-buy', I'll give you an example. I downloaded Eminem's "The Eminem Show" before it was released. It was so mind-blowingly awesome, I went into HMV on the day of release and bought a copy. I downloaded Eminem's latest album "The Relapse". It's crap. Maybe 3-4 good singles, with the rest just tripe. Will I buy it? Hell no! Where I think something is worth buying, I will buy it. The amount I spend on music hasn't gone down, it's gone up. I probably wouldn't have bought Lil Wayne's album just on the strength of "Lollipop" but listening to some of the other track, I appreciated it enough to buy it.

But there's no evidence that the two are related? There's only a limited amount people have to spend on lesiure items like music (be that downloads, CDs whatever) and that amount is becoming increasingly splintered by stuff like DVDs, games and so on.

Although I completely agree on that downloads are way over priced - I've been thinking about buying myself the new Dawn of War game. It's£34.99 on Steam and less than £18 in Game.

Guess which one I bought?

Which is crazy as the download doesn't have any of the physical costs that the boxed version in Game does - if anything it should be cheaper...

[link]

the precedent has been set... expect other countries to follow suit...

EDIT: on the hand...

[link]

To be honest, I might have gone the same way. If you've been gaming for some time, chances are you've built up quite a collection by now - you reach a point where you have more boxes sitting on the shelf than you know what to do with. I sometimes buy the ltd edition steel cases for games I really like - Stalker for instance, but the rest I'd rather get on Steam, almost regardless of the price. There's no looking around for discs, less hassle with limited activations and no patching required. This is where Valve got it right - sure Steam is DRM, but it's DRM that gives back too. My only experience of music downloads before 7digital was being told that I wasn't allowed to listen to the music I had bought because I had the sheer audacity to reinstall Windows. It's no wonder people download from bittorrent. Me, I just buy CD's for a fiver or less on Amazon marketplace and get the odd single on 7digital.

Having said that, my music expenditure has gone down in recent years because, well, they don't make it like they used to! It's mostly movies and games these days.

What really narks me is this - why should I bother paying for a product that is riddled with DRM (be it music, films or games) when I can get a DRM-free version for nada? If I buy music, I want to be able to have it on my PC, my MP4 player, my phone, my PS3 and as many other of my devices as I see fit. If the official version won't let me do this, I'll get an unofficial version that can.

And I hate, physically hate the idea that I should get "limited activations" of a game I have paid for! Screw that.

Furthermore, I often get hold of the latest episodes of TV series that I like through Bittorrent. That way I can watch it as soon as its available, since I have to wait months and months before I can buy it on DVD (which I always do).

Using the force of law to try and defend dead business models really gets on my tits. I don't know why it is in this country that small-time copyright and patent holders have to fund their own cases through the civil courts, but big business get the support of Trading Standards and the backing of the full-force of the Criminal Law. If companies want to enforce their copyright, they should have to do it at their own expense through the civil courts like everyone else. Using the Criminal Law to target what should be a civil offence makes me sick.

Given how MEPs feel on the issue, I wouldn't be surprised if we see EU legislation coming forward that will invalidate the French law.

another related thingy...

link

I can't stand films that have been camcordered

Screw that. It shouldn't be illegal, it's up to the cinemas to be more vigilant and chuck people who are filming out.

Anyone who's prepared to watch a movie that's been "camcordered" is a myopic asshole IMO.

The cinema is a place of magic and whilst the hollywood machine may not recognize that, thankfully many film makers still do. Watching crappy quality copies is something I will never understand. Same goes for music. It's not up to cinemas to chuck people out, it's up to people to not stand for sub-standard quality. This is much like teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, young offenders, or anything else you can think of. Education, social inclusion and consensus and choice are the keys. Legislation is not. Simple.