Posted on 06/22/2005 5:19:22 AM PDT by N3WBI3
LONDON (Hollywood Reporter) - Around 35% of music consumers now download tracks legally via the Internet and the percentage will soon pass the 40% who have pirated music, according to a new survey released Monday by Entertainment Media Research.
The online research company used data collected from 4000 music consumers to compile the 2006 Digital Music Survey in association with media law firm Olswang.
Fear of prosecution, Internet viruses, and inferior quality were cited as the main deterrents against illegal downloading, the report said. Nearly two-thirds of music consumers said immediate availability was the key reason for buying tracks online.
"The findings indicate that the music industry is approaching a strategic milestone with the population of legal downloaders close to exceeding that of pirates," Entertainment Media Research chief executive Russell Hart said.
John Enser, senior partner at Olswang, added in a statement: "Clear deterrents to illegal downloading are emerging, with fear of prosecution running high, and close behind is the sense that unauthorized downloading is 'not fair on the artists,' suggesting that the industry's messages, led by the British Phonographic Industry, are being communicated effectively."
Is this survey for Britain or the US, considering it mentions the British Phonographic Association?
In any event, this is true: "emerging, with fear of prosecution running high." However, the fear is largely spread due to inaccurate media reports that that the RIAA is suing downloaders.
They mostly aren't. They are going after people sharing a lot of files, but the downloaders are not being gone after by them unless they happen to catch you in the act, which is highly unlikely. There are simply too many.
30-second previews are a joke.
Unless you get a full minute to preview the song, that is not enough.
you barely even get a feel for the song.
I would rather download the full song for free to judge if I like it if they only give you a 30-second preview.
And, that is what I do because half the time I am not sure if I really like the song. Especially since 20 out of the 30 seconds usually is just a musical intro with no lyrics.
The funny thing is, once I got the free copy, I don't want to buy one.
Perhaps if they would offer decent-length previews, I would buy more.
Why doesn't he have the right to do it?
Hey I wish that were teh way it was too, but I dont hold the copyright to those songs so I dont get to make that decision...
BEcause of copyright law..
get ready....N will respond by saying "You only photocopy one page from a book, not get the whole thing."
Of course, most don't download more than two or three songs from an album, either, which would be fair use level.
So, really you are justified in what you are doing. It is not immoral or illegal. It is no different from copying a book chapter you really enjoy.
Now, N will reply and say but there aren't millions of copies of your chapter copy floating around. Well, no. But, since when does NUMBER OF COPIES determine the morality of something?
If it is wrong to copy it once, it is wrong to copy it 1000 times. Anything else is moral equivocation. Yet, since it is not immoral or illegal to copy a fair use level of one book or CD, it is also not wrong to copy it more than once.
Those that try to say otherwise are basing their beliefs that something is wrong by looking at the level of damage of doing something rather than whether it is wrong in itself.
We are looking at whether it is wrong in itself to copy a fair use amount of a work, and since it is not wrong, it doesn't matter how many you copy.
Downloading is not immoral provided you keep it to a fair use level. If you download an entire CD, that is a problem, but not 2 or 3 songs from it.
Who said the founders intended Britney Spears to be a "useful art"?
Anything less than half is fair use. You are stretching it for your purposes.
N will respond by saying "You only photocopy one page from a book, not get the whole thing."
Yea darn me for feeling the law and others peoples protections under it are somewhat important..
Of course, most don't download more than two or three songs from an album, either, which would be fair use level.
Fair use is per song, not per album... Sorry just pointing out the law to you.
So, really you are justified in what you are doing. It is not immoral or illegal. It is no different from copying a book chapter you really enjoy.
One is legal under fair use and the other is not..
Anything else is moral equivocation.
Or a pesky little think called "the law"
Those that try to say otherwise are basing their beliefs that something is wrong by looking at the level of damage of doing something rather than whether it is wrong in itself.
Huh? It sound more to me like you are looking at the level of damage than right and wrong. IP is just that someone else's property, and it has legal protection. Beyond legal protection its wrong to use someone else's property without consent..
Downloading is not immoral provided you keep it to a fair use level. If you download an entire CD, that is a problem, but not 2 or 3 songs from it.
What if those songs are for sale as singles? When iTunes and others started selling songs and singles the line of "well I only want that one song off the CD, so why should I buy the whole thing" (which btw was always a weak argument people gave to excuse breaking the law) went out the window..
I doubt they would think her music was worth a spit, but I still would hvae been protected as *HER* music..
My appologies for not reading more carefully. I think the rest of my comments addressed your issues.
That may or may not be, every summary I have seen is 10%. Even if it is half its half per song, *NOT* per album. That is like saying I have the right to photocopy a A-L of the encyclopedia because its only half of the set, clearly this is not the case..
Since 2004 (about a year ago), I have purchased 1157 songs on iTunes (according to my Purchased Songs playlist). That's $1,145 to purchase the songs I really wanted. Under the old system, I would have had to purchase about 330 CDs at $12 each to obtain that many good songs at a cost of $3,960.
Yes, I am a serious music fan and I do not mind paying out the money. This is a win-win situation for the recording artists and the consumers. I am buying more music than I ever did before and a lot more recording artists are benefiting from my purchases than they would otherwise. Now if only they could start offering the tracks at a higher bitrate, it would be a perfect situation.
Hmm....when we use stuff in the newspaper, I know the advice we got was less than half.
Perhaps that is just a basic rule of thumb, but in reality, it is over the line for some judges.
Im sure it is, and I am sure the law is at its most granular level far too complicated to be worth discussion between two people who are not lawyers.
I think the spirit of fair use defiantly does not include downloading a full song off of an album because its x% of the album..
"Fair use is per song, not per album... Sorry just pointing out the law to you."
You buy the entire CD, just like you buy an entire book.
There are different songs and different chapters, so they are the same in that fair use applies to the entire work, the entire book and the entire CD.
The law may say otherwise, but it is not logical so I ignore it.
to be quite blunt
If that same song is available in a single then what?
Nice essay.
But keep in mind that the laws on music sharing are still being written.
If I am not mistaken the SCOTUS is ruling on it yet this month.
There is nothing wrong with music sharing. If I copy and sell the songs, then you have a complaint.
Otherwise, its none of your business.
Nice essay.
But keep in mind that the laws on music sharing are still being written.
If I am not mistaken the SCOTUS is ruling on it yet this month.
There is nothing wrong with music sharing. If I copy and sell the songs, then you have a complaint.
Otherwise, its none of your business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.