UK music to sue online 'pirates'

  €dstowe 14:43 07 Oct 2004

The British music industry is to sue 28 internet users it says are illegally swapping music online.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says it is targeting "major uploaders" - those who make music available to share free with others.

More here: click here

  Sethhaniel 14:48 07 Oct 2004

click here

Just look a this site for more music than you can handle in all formats for free download

  Forum Editor 18:48 07 Oct 2004

the writing has been on the wall for some time. The fact remains that the music industry does itself no favours by suing its potential customers. I know that I've been vociferous about illegal downloaders in the past, and I still advocate abiding by the law, but............

If I was a senior music industry figure I would be looking for a way to relate to my market instead of alienating it. I know that these court actions will only be against 'serious' uploaders - those people who are deliberately and systematically flouting the law in a big way - but the publicity will do the industry no good at all. If they think that illegal downloading will go away because the sue a few people they must think again.

Sooner or later the music publishers will wake up and realise that there's been a revolution. The way that the music-listening public perceives the industry has changed forever, there's no going back, and sideways isn't going to work - only one way to go then, and that's inevitably going to mean cheaper music. The industry can avoid facing the truth for a while if they like, but there's a nettle to be grasped, and in their position I would be grasping - plenty of money can still be made by all concerned, the internet reaches out to a vast audience.

I'm available to the IFPI for consultation at very reasonable rates, but I'm not holding my breath.

  Dorsai 20:01 07 Oct 2004

i think the moder music industry is too concerned with a 'quick buck'

The want to 'manufacture' a group, release a single, and then sell shed loads of the album.

The fact that the group will fall into obscurity in 18 months is not an issue..

But once, the record companies, they signed up new, upcoming groups, and realesed an album. Then a second, then a third..Then they became very famous, and we know them still

U2...first out 1980, 'Boy' ...1981 ..'October' ...1985 ..'War' (and a 2 in the charts)..

THEN the Joshua Tree...MEGA FAME...Still going strong..

Texas. Sorta the same... 'southside' 1989. Still doing well.

Ever heard oF Magnum....(The oldest Cd i have is from 1985, and it is their 7th)

Guess not. I chart hit, Once, 1988, still going now though.

I can only assume many download music as it is not actually worth paying for. If the music was good enough, no one would object to paying for it.

The spice girls/Hear say/Garathe gates/Wet wet wet, all manufactured by the industry...And where are they now?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 20:14 07 Oct 2004

'And where are they now?'...rather better off than anyone working on a production line.


  Dorsai 20:29 07 Oct 2004

But not as well of as U2 i think.

  Dorsai 20:41 07 Oct 2004

If the music was good enough, no one would object to paying for it.

slight re-think...


If the music was better, More poeple would buy it, and less copy it.

And so the proble would not be such an issue.

But that still Is not what i really mean.

best i can do is>

Free & rubbish = OK

Cheap & passable = OK

Expensive & excellent = OK

Expensive & rubbish/passable = Not worth paying for.


  It's Me 21:38 07 Oct 2004

There is a different slant to all this I think.

Many many years ago, I was involved in a jazz club in Bradford, and we had to pay the Phonographic Society a fee to cover us playing live music.

I believe that if you look at pubs that provide live entertainment they have to do the same and display a licence to prove that they have paid.

No doubt the BBC and all others who play music also pay fees.

Such fees are also presumably included in the price of CDs and Legal download sites.

All quite correct. So I can fully understand them going for those who make money this way. It is unfair to those that do pay.

  [DELETED] 22:34 07 Oct 2004

Bit of Déjà Vu here, I remember similar views being put forward forty years ago with off shore pirate radio, the then BBC had to have a major re-think on their broadcast strategy because they were loosing out to the pirates. They had to revamp the then Light program, Home service and the Third program, all leftovers from the WW2 years, to bring them up to date to what we have now. Same with the Internet, its still early years, but things WILL change, because its customer driven there will be cheaper downloads in the future, its already starting. But there will always be an illegal element, as there is still in pirate radio today.

  Sethhaniel 08:47 08 Oct 2004

and are trying to pass the blame on to us - they have for years been making cheap to them 'rap/Dance' type albums which have lined their pockets at the time - but have no staying power -grab a quick buck while in vogue etc,.
But as any record company can tell you -their money is made in the long term - seling their back catalog albums - look at the 'Famous' older groups still around and making/selling records - now go and try and find a back catalog of records for all these 'rap/Dance' bands in which there is absolutly no demand - none existent - so no money - -Also there is not the demand that the
record companies once enjoyed - with more pc's /gamebots/ SkyTv etc,. --- Their hype fell short of me in the early '70's and they have not persuaded me to 'like' their promoted music since
- and its sites like the one in my earlier 'post' that you can find music you like and sometimes much more professional than tht the the music industry tries to take your well earned cash for - ;)

The problem is that things have changed on how we can access music gone are the days when you walked into a record shop and got ripped off when cds first came out we were told that the price was set high because it was new technology and someone had it pay for it us the consumer. that was over 20yrs ago.the music industry and the so called popstars are greedy and expect us to pay for their lavish lifestyle.why should i pay £30 for an album that cost £8 20 yrs ago you can find these if u look in any virgin megastore or hmv.its our bandwagon and you are not coming on thats what the music industry wants instead of joining the revolution that the internet has created.if they let you download an album and its covers for £5 i dont think there would be a problem.downloading music from the internet is no different than me lending the lastest cd to my next door neighbour and he copies it other than you can be traced on the come on "music industry" join the revolution

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

HTC U12 Plus review: Hands-on

Brilliant (and Weird) World Cup 2018 Art and Design Projects

Best Android emulators for Mac

TV & Streaming : comment regarder Roland Garros ?