Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:46 am

hey all,
ive actually got a little gripe to make, and im sorry if i upset anyone but mi gonna say it anyway. Downloading films and albums is wrong. You are taking money away from the people who make the movies and albums.

with movies it is easy to say that the companies make so much profit that it wont make a difference but these companies are losing millions every year. Becasue of this they cant take as many chances and thats why more and more drivel is being made. I admit im a total film geek but i just think that if u like something, you should show you do by buying the actual film.

With music its even worse, these bands dont make the most money and you're taking it out of there pockets.

I know ive got less morals than most but this is just something that annoys me. Also if anyone heard what you guys say, im pretty sure theyd know you are commiting a crime and would be in trouble. So my advice is to just buy the film, it looks better on the shelf and you are spending money on something you like.

Sorry, rant over people, but any views that agree with mine?

by **66-1137139704** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:53 am

i had no idea

by **Sabre** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:00 am

Sorry Dawson I disagree.

I won't buy that propaganda of the major companies that tells that I steal money because I download music and films.

In fact, I knew the group weezer, downloading from internet, and thus I went to a concert of Weezer and bought a couple of their disks. That would have never happened without the internet.

When a film has quality enough, I also want the CINEMA experience and I pay 6 € in the cinema, but most of the things I download, aren't worth of it.

Discographic companies say that if those downloads weren't available they'd win more money. Not mine at least. Discographic companies were born because they had a mission to do, make available to the general public, the work of artist. Well, that's ok, but obsolete. The same way they :censored:

many orchestra musicians that worked for radios (radio programs had real musicians that played as bacground) their ways are obsolete.

If they don't evolve, they'll die. They should put cheaper prices. A CD costed 3 $ one time and I thus understood a CD wit 12 song costed 24$, but when a cd costs nothing nowadays they have not considered to put a cheaper prize, because their agenda is one: MONEY.

I don't give a f*ck if they call me thief. And I don't care what ways they try to avoid downloading, it's like putting gates to the ocean.

BTW, I haven't stolen ANYTHING in my whole life.

by **Judge** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:01 am

stop downloading my signature sabre (theif) :angry:

by **dawson99** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:17 am

Sabre wrote:Sorry Dawson I disagree.

I won't buy that propaganda of the major companies that tells that I steal money because I download music and films.

In fact, I knew the group weezer, downloading from internet, and thus I went to a concert of Weezer and bought a couple of their disks. That would have never happened without the internet.

When a film has quality enough, I also want the CINEMA experience and I pay 6 € in the cinema, but most of the things I download, aren't worth of it.

Discographic companies say that if those downloads weren't available they'd win more money. Not mine at least. Discographic companies were born because they had a mission to do, make available to the general public, the work of artist. Well, that's ok, but obsolete. The same way they many orchestra musicians that worked for radios (radio programs had real musicians that played as bacground) their ways are obsolete.

If they don't evolve, they'll die. They should put cheaper prices. A CD costed 3 $ one time and I thus understood a CD wit 12 song costed 24$, but when a cd costs nothing nowadays they have not considered to put a cheaper prize, because their agenda is one: MONEY.

I don't give a f*ck if they call me thief. And I don't care what ways they try to avoid downloading, it's like putting gates to the ocean.

BTW, I haven't stolen ANYTHING in my whole life.

But you have stolen, you've admitted it. Its this simple. Whenever you download a major blockbuster film that you think can live without the money, what you are in fact doing is destroying the entire industry. Now these blockbuster film companies have a set amount they can afford to lose through piracy and this money could be being spent on independant films.

but no, as long as you are ok, it doesnt matter if the upcoming writers directors and actors wont be use as it would be a gamble the companies cant afford due to this problem.

the music dillema is different. If you want the odd track or havent heard the band before then its ok by me. but thats only because i like the actual albums, not the copies

by **simic_ie** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:20 am

To be honest I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff, yet I'd still much prefer to go to the cinema to watch a film if it's good enough. I think that it raises the standards required by the film-makers if they want to get people to go watch their film. At the end of the day, unless you have the best entertainment system money can buy in your house, the cinema is still the best place to watch a movie. But I won't just go spend my money on any old :censored:

, it has to be decent and well made. Besides with movies I'll watch them once or twice and then I won't really watch them again. I'm not going to spend 20-30 quid on a DVD for that. The best I'll do is rent one.

Music though is what I download most of, and downloading it had got me into a lot of bands that I wouldn't otherwise have heard of... and because of this I'm far more likely to go see gigs and stuff. It's a new world out there for these bands and companies and they are going to have to adjust to compete really. They've had their own way for a long time. Let's face it, the price of albums and that nowadays stops many people from experimenting with music they wouldn't usually buy.

I think the music/movie downloading is only really affecting the high end of the market to a significant degree. For smaller bands free downloads are a great way to build a following and get people interested in their music.

by **Woollyback** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:21 am

i see where you're coming from dawsonio but i was having this conversation with a mate the other day, we might be different to a lot of people out there who do nothing but download music but what i find is that i've actually been buying more music since i've discovered limewire etc. for example i might hear a song on the radio which sounds quite cool but maybe not so good that i rush out and buy the album, now i'll just limewire a couple more tracks of that band and it's got me buying MORE albums than before

as for downloading films i just can't be arsed, for the sake of £3 i'll just rent the dvd and save myself the hassle of downloading bags of cr@p overnight

my other thought is that in britain the music industry has raped our @rses and profiteered at our expense for decades, now it's payback time and they should've thought about this whilst they've been charging us more than the rest of the world for cd's and making a fortune in the process

by **dawson99** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:23 am

i'll give you the music arguament, but ive heard from so many people in film saying that companies just cant afford to make films like donnie darko as much anymore because of the amount of money they are losing due to the priacy, and thats whats pi$$ing me off as itm eans there is less class out there to watch

by **Sabre** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:25 am

But you have stolen, you've admitted it. Its this simple. Whenever you download a major blockbuster film that you think can live without the money, what you are in fact doing is destroying the entire industry. Now these blockbuster film companies have a set amount they can afford to lose through piracy and this money could be being spent on independant films.

I'm well aware that in UK and USA, there's a real believe that what I do is stealing. I preffer to call it evaluation before buying. I don't see how it's stealing because as I understand the concept, it implies that something that was in one's hand, is taken from another person and the former owner hasn't it any more (of course without the former owner's aproval). That doesn't happen in my case. I evaluate, and if any good, I buy.

I understand though, that different cultures have different concepts of what's to steal, politeness (is that true that in turkey burping in a meal is good education?) and other things, and I have my deepest respect to your point of view.

by **JBG** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:32 am

Sabre wrote:Sorry Dawson I disagree.

I won't buy that propaganda of the major companies that tells that I steal money because I download music and films.

In fact, I knew the group weezer, downloading from internet, and thus I went to a concert of Weezer and bought a couple of their disks. That would have never happened without the internet.

When a film has quality enough, I also want the CINEMA experience and I pay 6 € in the cinema, but most of the things I download, aren't worth of it.

Discographic companies say that if those downloads weren't available they'd win more money. Not mine at least. Discographic companies were born because they had a mission to do, make available to the general public, the work of artist. Well, that's ok, but obsolete. The same way they many orchestra musicians that worked for radios (radio programs had real musicians that played as bacground) their ways are obsolete.

If they don't evolve, they'll die. They should put cheaper prices. A CD costed 3 $ one time and I thus understood a CD wit 12 song costed 24$, but when a cd costs nothing nowadays they have not considered to put a cheaper prize, because their agenda is one: MONEY.

I don't give a f*ck if they call me thief. And I don't care what ways they try to avoid downloading, it's like putting gates to the ocean.

BTW, I haven't stolen ANYTHING in my whole life.

Sabre, you cannot be serious.

Just because you don't deem it illegal doesn't mean that its legal. Following your logic I could form they view that killing my neighbour is not illegal and simply go out and kill him. That doesn't make sense, does it? You cannot go around deciding which laws you want to obey.

The law is the law. Downloading is illegal.

Downloading is piracy and piracy does kill sales. 10-15 years ago I was a massive fan of the Amiga computer system. It was hugely popular, but piracy killed it. Nobody bothered buying games as you could simply copy a game from yuor mate.

Its a coincidence that Dawson brings this up because I was talking to the webmaster last night about this and other issues and it looks like we'll be banning all links to download sites (unless it obvious that they are freeware) as well as links to live footie matches. They are illegal and this site runs the risk of being shut down if they are allowed to continue.

by **anfieldadorer** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:34 am

i sometimes download songs that i am unable to find in stores (like too old ones etc.), other songs i like; they worth buying for recording quality reason. i don't download films since, what woolly says

by **lawrenson_sarah** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:38 am

I agree but they earn enough

All of them

by **Sabre** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:45 am

The law is the law. Downloading is illegal.

Download is illegal. Right. I cannot argue that.

But I can hardly accept it kill the sales, at least in Spain, discographics and film companies do profit every year and rising. In Spain, every single CD you buy, has a tax that reverts to the "so called" Artist organizations. In my work I have to burn 200 CD a day. IN those CDs there is nothing but OUR software. So are the companies of music stealing? IMHO, yes.

I defend the artists. And I defend them through going to concerts and to the cinema. But I have not much money to waste. When I buy something I cannot buy cr.ap . I can't afford that. By the downloading I don't get the real product, just a cheap evaluation, if I want the real thing, or the instructions, or the concert, I pay.

I don't try to convince you, I think you're right. I Just want to let known that not all the downloaders have no sensibility towards the artists (the companies like SONY? I don't care). I do buy their products, even more now that I can evaluate and know what's good.

Downloading is piracy and piracy does kill sales. 10-15 years ago I was a massive fan of the Amiga computer system. It was hugely popular, but piracy killed it. Nobody bothered buying games as you could simply copy a game from yuor mate.

The commodore Amiga didn't die because Piracy (1). Neither did the Atari ST, or the Speccy. The 16 bit times, just passed away, as did the 8 bitters, like the Speccy or BBC Acorn. I bought tons of Speccy games, because I first picked them in a pirate tape, and since I liked them so much, I saved the money I didn't have to buy them. I helped my father in the shop to be able to buy this games.

Sabre

(1) BTW, it's not dead. I bought a miggy recently , and bought a couple of games in a german online shop that still is open.

by **inglis5** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:45 am

Agree with a lot of what you say Dawson though I think Sabre has hit the nail on the head. I download quite a bit of music - through p2p (single tracks) and bittorrent (whole albums). If I like a specific track or album I then normally go and buy it, if it's rubbish then I don't bother. As Woollyback says, for years we've been ripped off by the music industry, I've got so many albums where there are only one or two decent songs and the rest is just filler. However I don't think the current download culture is going to improve that so if I want to listen to an album before I buy it then I think that's fair enough (you wouldn't buy a jumper without trying it on first!)

The problem we've got now is that iTunes has made it too easy to pick and choose which tracks you want to buy, people now very rarely will sit down and listen to an entire album - they'll more than likely listen to playlists or shuffles on their iPods. Therefore the key for the artist and the record companies is to finds that killer track, meaning the overall quality will decline.

Another detrimental effect that downloading will have is on album art. As CD sales decline, so will the complexity of album cover deigns. Why would somebody create something like a new Sergeant Pepper's when it is only going to be viewed on a 1.5" video screen. If you look at the majority of albums that come out from big bands now the designs are really simple - The Strokes 'First Impressions...', Gorillaz 'Demon Days'.

Anyway, I've got on so long I've forgotten what my point was, oh yeah, downloading is good (if used responsibly) and can drive sales

by **dawson99** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:50 am

on music i do agree, but its killing film, and thats fact. doesnt matter if you are from spain or siberia, its illegal and wrong and killing the film industry, thats all im saying

Liverpool FC Forum

Downloading is wrong - And illegal

Who is online