A whole generation too late.

Identity said:

Piracy of digital movies, music and software cost businesses from $30 billion to $75 billion in 2008 in the Group of 20 leading global economies, according to a February report commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce from Frontier Economics, a London-based consulting firm.

There's no way to even calculate that unless they mean the money they spend on shady companies & lawyers to fight it.

Good luck with that.

Umm...Haven't they already been doing this? A couple of years ago I downloaded The Shawshank Redemption and the next day my internet wasn't working for about 6 hours. When it finally did start working again I recieved a message from Time Warner telling me that I had downloaded illegaly and if I didn't stop I could have my services disconnected. Needless to say I haven't downloaded any movies since then. Now music on the other hand.....

Timmy84 said:

Good luck with that.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

And like danny said, i thought they've been doing this. Isn't it like every other 6 months or so there's some press release about cracking down on piracy? I swear these warnings should come with a "New and Improved" stamp on them or something.

Identity said:

Piracy of digital movies, music and software cost businesses from $30 billion to $75 billion in 2008 in the Group of 20 leading global economies, according to a February report commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce from Frontier Economics, a London-based consulting firm.

http://www.washingtonpost...story.html

I'd say this is 95% lies. Most folks that download this stuff would NEVER purchase it in any form......so how are they losing $?

dannyd5050 said:

Umm...Haven't they already been doing this? A couple of years ago I downloaded The Shawshank Redemption and the next day my internet wasn't working for about 6 hours. When it finally did start working again I recieved a message from Time Warner telling me that I had downloaded illegaly and if I didn't stop I could have my services disconnected. Needless to say I haven't downloaded any movies since then. Now music on the other hand.....

Yeah I would've thought Time Warner had done this by now anyways. This is just a fear factor news post (not to you Identity, you're just the messenger ). Look as long as you're not going to a Torrent or whatever, you're cool. Besides, IPs change anyways.

Here's what I don't understand, why isn't everything (movies, tv, music) available from subscription sites on demand? That seems to be the way things have been headed for at least the last ten years but no one is getting their act together and making it happen. The powers that be seem locked into doing things the old way when the public have made it pretty clear that we have moved on. Sure, you will always have people that want their content for free but if you make it easy for people to get everything that they want in one convenient place many of them will be willing to pay for it.

rialb said:

Here's what I don't understand, why isn't everything (movies, tv, music) available from subscription sites on demand? That seems to be the way things have been headed for at least the last ten years but no one is getting their act together and making it happen. The powers that be seem locked into doing things the old way when the public have made it pretty clear that we have moved on. Sure, you will always have people that want their content for free but if you make it easy for people to get everything that they want in one convenient place many of them will be willing to pay for it.

You mean like Netflix?

HohnerCatcher said:

rialb said:

Here's what I don't understand, why isn't everything (movies, tv, music) available from subscription sites on demand? That seems to be the way things have been headed for at least the last ten years but no one is getting their act together and making it happen. The powers that be seem locked into doing things the old way when the public have made it pretty clear that we have moved on. Sure, you will always have people that want their content for free but if you make it easy for people to get everything that they want in one convenient place many of them will be willing to pay for it.

You mean like Netflix?

Nope, better than Netflix. I should be able to rent a tiny magical box and virtually everything created in popular media over the last hundred years or so ought to be on it, maybe even further back than that if you add literature to music, movies and television. The technology has existed for a while for that to be a reality.

rialb said:

lastdecember said:

rialb said:

Here's what I don't understand, why isn't everything (movies, tv, music) available from subscription sites on demand? That seems to be the way things have been headed for at least the last ten years but no one is getting their act together and making it happen. The powers that be seem locked into doing things the old way when the public have made it pretty clear that we have moved on. Sure, you will always have people that want their content for free but if you make it easy for people to get everything that they want in one convenient place many of them will be willing to pay for it.

That is a good point however on the average the stats do not support the idea that everyone will pay or at least a good portion will. This obviously is true in the music business Movies havent been affected by downloading at all mainly because of the amount or time it takes to download a movie. But music is simple u can google any song or artist and have their music in a few minutes. Subscription sites exist now like emusic for one where u can have 49 cent songs and five dollars albums a majority of the time but this isnt getting supported and it should if people really are willing to pay but right now by in large music that people have is mostly not purchased because it easily can be gotten for free just as quick.

Maybe you are right and most people don't want to pay but many people are also fairly lazy. If you make it convenient enough and put everything in one spot I think a fair number of people would go for it but any pay site has to at least be as good as the free alternatives. If you can get higher quality for nothing you don't have much incentive to pay.

I'm sure it's much harder than I think it is but it's frustrating because it doesn't look like anyone is even trying.

rialb said:

lastdecember said:

rialb said: That is a good point however on the average the stats do not support the idea that everyone will pay or at least a good portion will. This obviously is true in the music business Movies havent been affected by downloading at all mainly because of the amount or time it takes to download a movie. But music is simple u can google any song or artist and have their music in a few minutes. Subscription sites exist now like emusic for one where u can have 49 cent songs and five dollars albums a majority of the time but this isnt getting supported and it should if people really are willing to pay but right now by in large music that people have is mostly not purchased because it easily can be gotten for free just as quick.

Maybe you are right and most people don't want to pay but many people are also fairly lazy. If you make it convenient enough and put everything in one spot I think a fair number of people would go for it but any pay site has to at least be as good as the free alternatives. If you can get higher quality for nothing you don't have much incentive to pay.

I'm sure it's much harder than I think it is but it's frustrating because it doesn't look like anyone is even trying.

there is so much red tape because U take the service i was speaking on Emusic, its subscription based but it also doesnt get all artists, it has done of cool stuff, free, breaks artists, but i am finding more and more that people who are preaching about building music back up are not supporting things like this. Emusic fights with iTunes which to me is another hand in the artists pocket. I dont think things will change because digital is so fast so quick with turnover, it takes seconds and minutes to download a song or album, for free, and thats the convienance that most want. When digital became the law of the land that was the bullet in the head of music, thats why you have labels now selling "events" and "products" not "music" and not investing in 4-5 albums building an aritst, its the American Idol generation type belief, everyone wants a million tomorrow and everyone thinks they are entitled to it because it looks so damn easy now. However in all this GRAY there is some silver lining, and that will always be the demographic that still wants an "album" or a "Cd" when that dies off, its all going to die off.

You complain about the iTunes Store all the time, but the bottom line is that it's successful for exactly the reason rialb mentioned: it's easier and more convenient than the free alternatives. Without it, it's hard to imagine all but a select few paying for music at this point.

AlexdeParis said:

You complain about the iTunes Store all the time, but the bottom line is that it's successful for exactly the reason rialb mentioned: it's easier and more convenient than the free alternatives. Without it, it's hard to imagine all but a select few paying for music at this point.

But not because of its convienance but more because its another label in the fact that its just taking another cut, its yet another distributor of the music. Also its not properly regulated which is a major issue, there are alot of compilations created on the itunes store that artists themselves dont know they are even on, and given copyrights by the "anonymous" source that puts them up(in the last year i have reported to them 12 fake compilations and also actual BOOTLEGS that were put up on iTunes as new albums) So thats a major issue with them and with any digital "faceless" outlet that has no regulation, and also has a monopoly. YES iTunes is a good source because its the one in the forefront, i dont have an issue with the store, outside of the fact that the "breaking" up of albums which is nothing more than a label type technique to make whatever they can and pay nothing out. The fact is that 3% of iPods have any iTunes store related purchases that is fact an nothing has been able to turn that around, the Report of music sales going up, is like when the unemployment rate goes down from 9% to 8.9% and everyone thinks its progress, its not. Digital sales are up mainly because there is the elimination of all other sources, of course its revenue will go up, if you eliminate cable tv, network ratings will go up again, its that kind of philosphy. And YES itunes has pulled in customers, BUT its not pulling in customers that would steal the music if the store didnt exist, thats the false belief, most of the iTunes store buyers are the ones that still buy MUSIC the late 20's -40 year olds that cant be bothered to go to a lame store like Best Buy or Target that "mask" themselves as retailers of Music when they arent.

I don't download, legal or otherwise. But from what I've seen, there's way more music that's out of print, than are sold as MP3's. So if someone downloads out of print/obscure stuff, the record companies are not losing any money, because they're not selling it. I see a lot of old videos & TV show footage that people upload on Youtube that have never been sold in any form, and is never going to be released.

MickyDolenz said:

I don't download, legal or otherwise. But from what I've seen, there's way more music that's out of print, than are sold as MP3's. So if someone downloads out of print/obscure stuff, the record companies are not losing any money, because they're not selling it. I see a lot of old videos & TV show footage that people upload on Youtube that have never been sold in any form, and is never going to be released.

If I can't find it in stores or on download service, I download. There's a lot of music that's out of print and how else is someone going to find it?

lastdecember said:

AlexdeParis said:

You complain about the iTunes Store all the time, but the bottom line is that it's successful for exactly the reason rialb mentioned: it's easier and more convenient than the free alternatives. Without it, it's hard to imagine all but a select few paying for music at this point.

But not because of its convienance but more because its another label in the fact that its just taking another cut, its yet another distributor of the music. Also its not properly regulated which is a major issue, there are alot of compilations created on the itunes store that artists themselves dont know they are even on, and given copyrights by the "anonymous" source that puts them up(in the last year i have reported to them 12 fake compilations and also actual BOOTLEGS that were put up on iTunes as new albums) So thats a major issue with them and with any digital "faceless" outlet that has no regulation, and also has a monopoly. YES iTunes is a good source because its the one in the forefront, i dont have an issue with the store, outside of the fact that the "breaking" up of albums which is nothing more than a label type technique to make whatever they can and pay nothing out.

The breaking up of albums was a big reason Napster was so popular, because the labels virtually killed singles in an effort to force consumers to buy whole albums for 1 or 2 songs. The iTunes Store breaks up the albums to give consumers what they want.

The fact is that 3% of iPods have any iTunes store related purchases that is fact an nothing has been able to turn that around,

You're just going to ignore the fact that a large percentage of the songs on those iPods were ripped from CDs people bought or already owned?

the Report of music sales going up, is like when the unemployment rate goes down from 9% to 8.9% and everyone thinks its progress, its not. Digital sales are up mainly because there is the elimination of all other sources, of course its revenue will go up, if you eliminate cable tv, network ratings will go up again, its that kind of philosphy. And YES itunes has pulled in customers, BUT its not pulling in customers that would steal the music if the store didnt exist, thats the false belief, most of the iTunes store buyers are the ones that still buy MUSIC the late 20's -40 year olds that cant be bothered to go to a lame store like Best Buy or Target that "mask" themselves as retailers of Music when they arent.

How can you call that a false belief when you have no way of proving it one way or the other? It's all theoretical.

lastdecember said:

AlexdeParis said:

You complain about the iTunes Store all the time, but the bottom line is that it's successful for exactly the reason rialb mentioned: it's easier and more convenient than the free alternatives. Without it, it's hard to imagine all but a select few paying for music at this point.

But not because of its convienance but more because its another label in the fact that its just taking another cut, its yet another distributor of the music.

and how's that different than the big box retailers or the local record store taking their cut?