Guest XPClone Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Is it really illegal to download MP3's?
Guest strathclydezero Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 No. It's illegal to break copyright.
Guest strathclydezero Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 It is not breaking the law to download an mp3 file. It's just like downloading any file from the internet. I guess it is technically illegal to download any file from the internet for which you don't have legal permission of the creator to download. ]http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm
Guest Gorskar Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 If you download a non-copyrighted (or with the copyright holder's permission) mp3 theres nothing wrong there. Also if you own a CD with the mp3 on that you are downloading then what you are doing is probably ok under fair use. However downloading copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holder is not allowed legally, although theres precious little they can do to stop you. Interesting point is that there is still no proven link between mp3 sharing and falling music sales. True music sales have fallen slightly, but this could also be attributed to more competion for our money from eg, DVDs. And lets not forget the fact that fewer titles have been released this year than in the peak of their sales. (And alot of what has been released is from rubbishy manufactured groups with no real hint of originality :roll: )
Guest frankwilliams Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 "I guess it is technically illegal to download any file from the internet for which you don't have legal permission of the creator to download." Tell this to Glitter and Townshend!
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Kind of irrelevant. But yes, I don't think theres any law against "backing up" your music collection, through whatever means you wish... When home video recorders were released it was said that was the end of cinema. I dont see any _real_ difference in giving your next door neighbour a videotape of Corination Street you recorded the night before, and letting a Tunisian in Portugal download your Phil Collins collection NB: The artists/programmes mentioned here bear no relevance to my actual viewing/listening habits, ta
Guest XPClone Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 You deserve to be whipped for that one mate!
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 It's my girlfriends fault, making me watch it :/. Apparently the evil bloke killed emily and the fit one last nite :D
Guest spacemonkey Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 This thread should probably be in Off Topic, but that's no reason not to throw in my 0.02p worth... While I personally agree that mp3s aren't necessarily costing sales etc, I would like to actually support good artists. 2 ideas. 1-the record industry pulls it's finger out and provides digital music at a low enough cost that people will just pay rather than going down the "illegal" path. 2-Set up a site called donation to artists or something. Everyone continues as they do now and download anything you want. If you actually like an artist go to the site and give some money to them. The site is run as non profit and 1/2 times per year bundles up all the money that's been donated and distributes it to the actual artists it was donated to. Thereby circumventing the whole record company thing and giving people an avenue that they can give artists money rather than at the moment where a good excuse for piracy is that the artist only gets 15p of the £20 album I purchase. Hell, I'd give the artist at least 50p, maybe more.
Guest d80tb7 Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 the _real_ difference is that now you can effectively 'share' your media collection with anyone in the world for a reletively small investment in time/money/effort. If you had the infrastrucure to pass videos of coronation street to several hundred million people then that would be a big deal also.
Guest Ed Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Kind of irrelevant. Â But yes, I don't think theres any law against "backing up" your music collection, through whatever means you wish... When home video recorders were released it was said that was the end of cinema. I dont see any _real_ difference in giving your next door neighbour a videotape of Corination Street you recorded the night before, and letting a Tunisian in Portugal download your Phil Collins collection Well there is. Coronation Street is paid for by advertisers and not by the public so you would not be costing anyone anything by doing what you said. If said Portuguese person or anyone else downloads music from you (as an alternative to buying) the industry (and Mr. Collins) have been harmed.
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 So how about something from the BBC? Then its harming _us_, the license payer isn't it? Oh and I still buy CD's recorded by artists I also download tracks by.
Guest Bazz Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 I dont see any _real_ difference in giving your next door neighbour a videotape of Corination Street you recorded the night before, and letting a Tunisian in Portugal download your Phil Collins collection There are a couple of issues with this both from a legal and moral standpoint: 1) It is illegal AFAIK. I think you are allowed to record programmes for your own use, but not to distibute. Saying that prosecuting is more bother than it's worth... 2) Most likely your neighbour wants it off you cause he can't get it elsewhere, rather than cause he's too cheap to pay. You're not taking money off anyone. Downloading music rather than paying for it is taking money off the record companies (oh, yeah and a little of the artists ;-)) 3) The program is broadcast for "free" anyway. Yes the program makers might not get as much money from advertisers this way cause they don't know how many people are watching it, but anyway... 4) Doing this on a small scale like this won't hurt anyone much. However with the advent of the Internet it's much easier to do this on a large scale. Barry
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 1 and 2, point taken :D 3) see my post above 4) Again point taken, but has anyone ever done a search for Corination Street or Neightbours on some dodgy place?
Guest Shire29 Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 who exactly is the "FIT" one in coronation street ? Cheers, Shire
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Maxine, remembered her name now. Can't remember the bloke though. It's the one married to Gail who's in all the dept...
Guest Ed Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 So how about something from the BBC? Â Then its harming _us_, the license payer isn't it?Yes, but only if the neighbour has no TV license. Oh and I still buy CD's recorded by artists I also download tracks by. That was a bit ambiguous. It sounds like you either mean "I buy everything I download" or "I download half of thier tracks and buy the other half"
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Heh hmm, i was trying to imply i do support the artist's whose tracks i download, and i do still buy their CD's. Admittedly not everything they produce though...
Guest spacemonkey Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 It's just like divx movies really...the only sales they miss from "someone" who downloads their movies early is for movies that are crap. Normally you end up at a movie that is rubbish having payed £5. Where as movies that are good, "someone" would still go see at the movies and buy the DVD regardless of having a lesser quality divx already.
Guest d80tb7 Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Its not quite the same. Apart from the fact that the time and effort needed to download movies can be prohibative in the first place, even a good quality divx movie has 2 major disadvantages over a DVD, namely: 1. It will be notably worse quality. 2. You really have no option but to play it on your computer with all the hassle and poor screen size that involves. Now MP3's are easy to find and quick to download. You can burn them to CD so you're not restricted to the computer and while it cannot be argued that the quality is identicle to a CD, it is good enough that it makes no difference to the majority of people.
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 More and more graphics cards and laptops especially are comming with TV-Out sockets. At the low resolution TV's run at the quality of a dix is probably higher than vhs, but not quite dvd. Braodband internet access is becoming more widespread etc etc, so i'd expect divx's to go the same way as mp3's, in the end its all a learning curve for the industry as new technologies are introduced...
Guest Shire29 Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 SO WHAT YER SAYING IS THAT MAXINE AND EMILY ARE DEAD ? NO WAY....... CHEERS, SHIRE
Guest Emad Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 I've fiddled my ps2 so that it plays divxs - mainly of tv shows that I either download off the net or get my friends to backup from their tv cards. Some DVD rips are of equivalent quality to a DVD. Most are certainly a hell of a lot better than VHS. Of course, if I like a movie, I'll buy it on DVD. If I like an mp3, I'll buy the album. TV shows usually take aaaages to come out on DVD/Video (if they ever do) and I'm v forgetful about recording :D Albums are overpriced anyway - anyone remember that ruling in America where the courts agreed and ordered 150 million in compensation to be paid or suchlike?
Guest spacemonkey Posted January 14, 2003 Report Posted January 14, 2003 Yep, if you live in america and bought an album since 1995 then under the settlement the RIAA owes you $20US
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now